In the Richards v. Chase Elevator Company case of 1894, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chase Elevator Company. The dispute arose when Richards claimed that he had a patent for an elevator safety device and accused Chase Elevator Company of infringing upon his patent rights by using a similar mechanism in their elevators without his permission or paying him royalties. However, after examining both devices closely, it was determined that there were significant differences between them and they did not operate on the same principle as alleged by Richards. Therefore, it was concluded that no infringement had occurred because although both devices served to prevent accidents caused by broken cables in elevators, they achieved this through different means and mechanisms which meant that they were fundamentally distinct inventions despite their superficial similarities.

The dissenting opinion in the Richards v. Chase Elevator Company case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law. The dissent believed that when a party agrees to perform certain duties under a contract, they should be held accountable for any negligence or failure in performing those duties, regardless of whether they are considered an independent contractor or not. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "ordinary care" and believed that this term should encompass all actions necessary to ensure safety and proper performance under a contract. Therefore, according to them, Chase Elevator Company had breached its duty by failing to maintain safe conditions on their elevators as stipulated in their agreement with Richards.