In the case of Anderson v. Pacific Coast Steamship Company, Claimant of the Steamship Queen in 1911, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining liability for a collision between two ships - The Queen and The Emily Banning. Both vessels were found to be at fault; however, due to an existing maritime law known as "The Divided Damages Rule," each party was required to pay half of the total damages regardless of their degree of fault. This rule applied even though it was determined that The Emily Banning had been more negligent than The Queen in causing this accident. Ultimately, this ruling upheld a principle within maritime law that when both parties are at fault in a collision on navigable waters, they share equally in bearing responsibility for damages incurred.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Anderson v. Pacific Coast Steamship Company argued that the majority's ruling was inconsistent with established maritime law principles and unfairly burdened ship owners. The dissent noted that under traditional maritime law, a ship owner is not liable for damages caused by an employee's negligence unless it can be shown that the owner had some knowledge or control over the negligent act. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that Pacific Coast Steamship Company knew about or could have prevented its employee from negligently causing damage to another vessel. Thus, according to the dissenting justices, it was unfair and contrary to precedent for the Court to hold Pacific Coast Steamship Company responsible for paying damages.