In the 1897 case of Budzisz v. Illinois Steel Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an employment contract. The plaintiff, Budzisz, was injured while working for the defendant company and sought compensation for his injuries. He argued that he had been employed under a contract which guaranteed him safe working conditions and that this agreement had been breached when he was injured due to unsafe conditions at work. However, the court ruled in favor of Illinois Steel Company stating there was no explicit guarantee of safety in his employment contract nor could such a guarantee be implied from general terms or circumstances surrounding their agreement. Therefore, it held that employers were not liable for accidents occurring during regular business operations unless they failed to exercise reasonable care or directly contributed to creating dangerous situations.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Budzisz v. Illinois Steel Company argued that the plaintiff should have been allowed to recover damages for his injuries, despite having assumed some risk by working in a dangerous occupation. The justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "assumption of risk," arguing that it was not applicable because the defendant company had failed to provide safe working conditions and equipment. He believed that employers should be held accountable for maintaining safety standards and ensuring their employees are not exposed to unnecessary risks, regardless if they work in inherently hazardous industries or occupations. Thus, he contended that denying recovery on these grounds would unjustly absolve negligent employers from liability and discourage them from implementing necessary safety measures.