In the case of Maty, Administratrix v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 1937, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding workers' compensation and employer liability for workplace injuries. The plaintiff was the administratrix of an employee who had died from inhaling toxic fumes at work in a zinc smelting plant owned by Grasselli Chemical Co. She sought damages under Ohio's wrongful death statute, alleging that her husband’s death was due to negligence on part of his employer in failing to provide safe working conditions. The defendant company argued that it should not be held liable because it had complied with all relevant safety regulations and standards set forth by federal law and industry practice. It also contended that the deceased worker knew about potential hazards associated with his job but chose to continue working anyway. However, after considering both parties’ arguments, the court found in favor of Maty (the widow). It held that employers have a duty to ensure their employees' safety while they are at work regardless if they comply with existing laws or industry practices; this includes taking necessary precautions against foreseeable risks even if such dangers are inherent or customary within certain occupations.

In the dissenting opinion for Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., the justice argued that the majority's decision to deny compensation to a widow whose husband died from inhaling toxic fumes at work was unjust and failed to uphold workers' rights. The justice believed that there was sufficient evidence showing a direct link between the worker's death and his exposure to harmful substances in his workplace, which should have been enough for him or his family members to receive compensation under Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation Act. The justice also criticized how difficult it is for employees or their families who suffer from occupational diseases due to hazardous working conditions, like those present in this case, because they are often unable able prove causation within legal standards set by courts. This makes it nearly impossible for them get compensated even when employers fail provide safe environments as required by law.