Butler v. Boston and Savannah Steamship Company was a Supreme Court case decided in 1871. The case involved a dispute between a steamship company and a passenger who had been injured while on board one of the company’s vessels. The passenger, Butler, had been injured when a hatch cover fell on him while he was on board the vessel. He sued the company for damages, claiming that the company had been negligent in failing to properly secure the hatch cover. The Supreme Court held that the company was liable for Butler’s injuries. The Court found that the company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of its vessel, and that it had breached that duty by failing to properly secure the hatch cover. The Court also held that the company was liable for the damages suffered by Butler, as it was foreseeable that an unsecured hatch cover could cause injury to a passenger. The decision in Butler v. Boston and Savannah Steamship Company established the principle that a vessel owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of its vessel, and that it can be held liable for damages suffered by passengers as a result of its negligence. This case has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving maritime law and the liability of vessel owners.

In the Supreme Court case of Butler v. Boston and Savannah Steamship Company, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent. He noted that prior cases had held that when an employer is liable for injuries caused by its employees' negligence, it cannot be relieved from liability on account of any agreement between itself and those injured parties. In this particular case, Justice Field believed there was sufficient evidence to show that the steamship company had been negligent in failing to provide adequate safety measures for passengers aboard their vessel; thus they should not have been absolved from responsibility due to an agreement with one of the injured parties. Furthermore, he argued that even if such an agreement did exist between them and Butler (the plaintiff), it would still be unenforceable as it violated public policy considerations regarding passenger safety at sea. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that justice demanded a reversal of the lower court's judgment against Butler so as to hold Boston and Savannah Steamship Company responsible for damages resulting from their negligence.