In the case of Coffman v. Federal Laboratories, Inc., 1944, the plaintiff sued for damages from injuries sustained due to a tear gas pen allegedly manufactured by Federal Laboratories and sold by Sears Roebuck & Co. The Supreme Court held that under Pennsylvania law (where the injury occurred), there was no implied warranty of safety in this sale because it was not a food or drink product intended for human consumption. Furthermore, they ruled that even if such an implied warranty existed, it would not extend to third parties like Coffman who were injured but did not purchase the product themselves. Therefore, both companies were absolved of liability as there was no negligence on their part proven in court.

The dissenting opinion in the Coffman v. Federal Laboratories, Inc., case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling dismissing an antitrust lawsuit was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were sufficient allegations of conspiracy and monopolistic practices by Federal Laboratories and other defendants to warrant a trial. They contended that the plaintiff had adequately demonstrated potential harm caused by these alleged actions, including price-fixing and market manipulation which could negatively impact competition within their industry sector. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "directness" in relation to injury claims under Section 7 of the Sherman Act; arguing it should not be so narrowly construed as to exclude plaintiffs who may have suffered indirect harm from anti-competitive behavior.