In the 1908 case of Maiorano v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. The plaintiff, an Italian immigrant who could not read or understand English well had signed a release form after being injured while working for the railroad company. He later sued for damages claiming that he did not comprehend what he was signing at that time due to his limited understanding of English language. However, it was found by lower courts that there were interpreters present when he signed this document who explained its contents to him in his native tongue before he affixed his signature on it. On appeal, these findings were upheld by the Supreme Court which stated that if someone signs a contract without fully understanding its terms despite having had reasonable opportunity to do so then they cannot later claim ignorance as grounds for invalidating said agreement.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Maiorano v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company argued that the majority's decision was not based on a correct interpretation of the law. The dissenting justices believed that there was sufficient evidence to suggest negligence on part of the railroad company, which should have been enough for liability to be assigned. They disagreed with the majority's view that because Maiorano had willingly accepted employment knowing about potential risks associated with it, he could not claim damages from his employer when those risks materialized into harm. The dissenters contended this perspective ignored established principles regarding an employer’s duty to provide safe working conditions for its employees regardless of any perceived acceptance or understanding by workers about inherent job hazards.