In the case of Harbison-Walker Refractories, a division of Dresser Industries, Inc., v. Brieck, Eugene F., 1988, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether an employer could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to exposure to asbestos during his employment. The plaintiff claimed that he developed asbestosis and lung cancer from working with asbestos-containing products manufactured by Harbison-Walker Refractories. However, the company argued that it should not be held responsible because at the time of Brieck's employment (1942-1976), there were no regulations or industry standards regarding asbestos exposure in place. The court ruled in favor of Harbison-Walker Refractories stating that employers cannot be expected to adhere to safety standards before they are established and made known within their respective industries.

In the dissenting opinion for Harbison-Walker Refractories v. Brieck, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow an employee to sue his employer under state law for work-related injuries, despite receiving workers' compensation benefits, undermined the purpose of workers' compensation laws. These laws were designed as a trade-off: employees gave up their right to sue employers in exchange for guaranteed benefits in case of injury. The dissent believed this ruling would encourage litigation and increase costs for businesses, potentially leading them to reduce safety measures due to financial strain or even move operations out of state. Furthermore, they contended that allowing such lawsuits could result in inconsistent judgments and double recovery by plaintiffs who had already received workers’ compensation payments.