In the Richards v. Chase Elevator Company case of 1895, 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 on his patent rights by using a similar design without his permission. However, upon examination, it was found that Richard's claim to originality was not valid as there were prior patents with similar designs predating Richard’s patent application. Therefore, the court concluded that since Richard's invention lacked novelty and did not involve any new or useful process or machine which is required under law for obtaining a patent right; hence he could not claim exclusive rights over it.

In the dissenting opinion for Richards v. Chase Elevator Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a corporation liable for an employee's negligence even when they were not acting within their scope of employment contradicted established legal principles. The dissent emphasized that corporations should only be held responsible if the negligent act was committed by an employee while performing duties directly related to their job or authorized by the employer. In this case, there wasn't sufficient evidence showing that Mr. Richards' injury resulted from such circumstances; hence, holding Chase Elevator Company accountable would set a dangerous precedent and potentially expose businesses to unwarranted liability risks in future cases involving workplace accidents.