In the case of Black et al. v. Cutter Laboratories, a group of plaintiffs sued Cutter Laboratories for damages after they contracted polio from a vaccine produced by the company. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cutter Labs, stating that while it was unfortunate that some individuals had adverse reactions to the vaccine, this did not mean that the product was defective or dangerous per se. The court held that there is an inherent risk involved with any medical treatment and vaccines are no exception; therefore, manufacturers cannot be held liable unless negligence can be proven on their part in creating or distributing their products. This ruling set an important precedent regarding liability issues related to pharmaceuticals and other medical treatments.

In the dissenting opinion for Black et al. v. Cutter Laboratories, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a jury verdict in favor of Cutter Laboratories was incorrect because there were significant issues with how evidence had been presented and interpreted during trial proceedings. The dissenting justices believed that expert testimony provided by doctors who treated patients affected by Cutter's polio vaccine should not have been admitted as evidence due to potential bias and lack of objectivity. They also criticized the majority for failing to consider whether or not these doctors could provide an impartial analysis given their professional involvement in the case. Furthermore, they disagreed with how statistical data regarding polio incidence rates had been used to establish causation between use of Cutter’s vaccine and development of paralytic polio, arguing this approach lacked scientific validity.