In the 1916 case of Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company et al. v. Clough et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company, overturning a lower court's decision that had favored Clough and his associates. The dispute arose when Clough sued for damages after being injured while working on a railway construction project managed by an independent contractor hired by the railway company. The lower court held that despite not being directly employed by them, he was still under their control and supervision, making them liable for any injuries sustained during work hours. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was determined that since Clough was technically employed by an independent contractor rather than directly with the railroad company itself; therefore they were not responsible for ensuring his safety at work or compensating him for any injuries suffered therein. This ruling established important precedent regarding employer liability in situations involving third-party contractors.

In the dissenting opinion for Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company v. Clough, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against the railway company was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors in how evidence had been interpreted and applied by both the trial court and their fellow Supreme Court Justices. They contended that these mistakes led to an unjust outcome for the railway company, which they felt should not have been held liable for damages caused by a fire on its property. Furthermore, they disagreed with what they saw as an overly broad interpretation of liability laws used to justify this verdict. In their view, such interpretations could set dangerous precedents leading to excessive litigation and unfair penalties against businesses.