In the 1948 case of Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of DuPont, a chemical company that had been sued by an employee's widow for negligence leading to her husband's death from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure at work. The plaintiff argued that DuPont was aware of the dangers associated with asbestos but failed to provide adequate protection or warning to its employees. However, the court held that under West Virginia law (where the case originated), employers are not obligated to ensure absolute safety and could only be held liable if they knowingly exposed their workers to harmful substances without providing necessary precautions or warnings about potential hazards. In this instance, it was found there wasn't sufficient evidence proving Dupont knew about such risks during Mr.Adkins' employment period (1936-1942). Therefore, Mrs.Adkins’ claim did not meet these criteria and her lawsuit was dismissed.

In the dissenting opinion for Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to award compensation under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there was a causal relationship between Mr. Adkins' employment and his death from heart disease. He believed that this case should have been treated as any other workman’s compensation claim, where causation is an essential element of recovery, rather than being decided based on presumptions about occupational diseases in certain industries. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for making broad interpretations of statutory language without clear legislative intent supporting such readings.