The Morley v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company case in 1892 revolved around a dispute over patent rights for railway car couplers. The plaintiff, Morley, claimed that the defendant had infringed upon his patented design of an automatic car-coupler. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him on grounds that his patent was not new or novel but rather an improvement of existing designs already available in public domain. Furthermore, it was found that he did not clearly specify what exactly constituted this supposed improvement in his patent application which led to ambiguity and lack of clarity about what he actually invented or improved upon. Therefore, the court held that such vague patents could potentially stifle innovation by creating uncertainty among inventors regarding their legal rights and obligations.

In the dissenting opinion for Morley v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, Justice Brewer argued that the plaintiff should not be denied recovery simply because he was unaware of a safer method to perform his job. He believed that it is unreasonable to expect an employee to have perfect knowledge about all aspects of their work, including potential risks and safety measures. The responsibility should lie with the employer who has superior knowledge regarding these matters due to their control over operations and resources available for ensuring workplace safety. Therefore, if there exists a safer way of doing things which could prevent injury or death but this information is withheld from employees by employers, then they should be held liable for any resulting harm suffered by workers under their employ.