Dane v. Chicago Manufacturing Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1891. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, John Dane, and the defendant, the Chicago Manufacturing Company. Dane had been employed by the company as a machinist and was injured while working on a machine owned by the company. He sued the company for damages, claiming that the company had been negligent in providing a safe working environment. The Supreme Court held that the company was liable for Dane's injuries. The Court found that the company had failed to provide a safe working environment and had not taken reasonable steps to protect its employees from injury. The Court also held that the company was liable for Dane's medical expenses and lost wages. The Court's decision in Dane v. Chicago Manufacturing Company established the principle that employers are responsible for providing a safe working environment and must take reasonable steps to protect their employees from injury. This case has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving workplace safety and employer liability.

In the case of Dane v. Chicago Manufacturing Company, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misconstrued the language of an Illinois statute and failed to consider its legislative history. He noted that while it was true that under common law principles a contract could not be enforced against an infant without consideration, this did not mean that such contracts were voidable at will by either party; rather, they could only be avoided if there was fraud or misrepresentation involved. Furthermore, he argued that since the legislature had specifically provided for infants to enter into binding contracts with adults in certain circumstances (such as when goods are sold on credit), these provisions should have been given effect instead of being disregarded by the court’s decision. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting his disagreement with both the reasoning and result reached by his colleagues in their majority opinion.