In the Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Company case of 1913, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pittsburgh Coal Company, rejecting a claim made by an employee named Myers who was injured while working on a coal-loading machine that he had not been adequately trained to operate. The court held that it was not within its jurisdiction to determine whether or not adequate training had been provided and stated that such matters were best left to state courts and legislatures which are better equipped to handle them. Furthermore, the court emphasized that employers have no legal obligation under federal law at this time period (early 20th century) to ensure their employees' safety or provide them with safe working conditions; instead, they only need be concerned about potential liability for negligence if an injury occurs due to unsafe conditions or practices at work.

In the dissenting opinion for Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Pennsylvania law requiring coal companies to pay miners in legal tender rather than company-issued scrip was an overreach of state power and violated contractual freedom. The dissenting justices believed that if both parties willingly entered into a contract where payment would be made in scrip, then there should not be any legislative interference with this agreement. They held that such laws were paternalistic and infringed upon individual liberty by assuming workers could not make decisions about their own best interests. Furthermore, they contended that these types of regulations had potential negative economic consequences as they might discourage businesses from operating within states implementing them due to increased costs or administrative burdens associated with compliance.