In the 1909 case of Friday v. Hall and Kaul Company, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over timber rights on land in Alabama. The plaintiff, Friday, claimed that he had purchased the land from its original owner who had reserved all timber rights for himself before selling it to Hall and Kaul Company (the defendants). However, when Friday attempted to exercise these rights by cutting down trees on the property, he was sued by Hall and Kaul Company for trespassing. The court ruled in favor of Friday stating that his purchase agreement clearly stated that he bought both surface and mineral rights along with "all other privileges" which included timber rights as well. Therefore, despite having sold the land itself to another party (Hall & Kaul), since no specific reservation about timber was made during this sale transaction; it could be inferred that such right still belonged to him or any subsequent buyer from him like Mr.Friday.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Friday v. Hall and Kaul Company disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss Friday's claim for damages against his employer, arguing that it was not clear whether or not he had knowingly assumed risk when he took on his job. The dissent argued that there were conflicting testimonies about what exactly Friday knew about the risks involved in his work, and therefore it should have been left up to a jury to decide if he had indeed willingly taken on these risks. They also pointed out that even if Friday did know about certain dangers, this does not necessarily mean he consented to them - especially as there was evidence suggesting safety measures could have been implemented by the company but weren't. Therefore, they believed dismissing his claim outright was unjustified.