The Canute Steamship Company, Ltd. v. Pittsburgh & West Virginia Coal Company case in 1923 revolved around a dispute over the delivery of coal that was damaged during transit due to an explosion on the ship carrying it. The Pittsburgh & West Virginia Coal Co., along with other shippers, sued Canute Steamship Co., arguing that they were responsible for the damage as per their contract's terms and conditions. However, Canute argued that they were not liable because of a clause in their bill of lading which exempted them from liability for damages caused by explosions not resulting from negligence on their part. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Canute Steamship Co., stating that under maritime law and according to the Harter Act (a federal statute governing sea carriers' responsibilities), such clauses are valid unless proven otherwise - meaning if there is no evidence showing negligence or fault by the carrier leading to an accident like an explosion, then they can't be held accountable for any subsequent damage.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Canute Steamship Company, Ltd., et al. v. Pittsburgh & West Virginia Coal Company et al., argued that the majority's decision to hold a foreign shipowner liable for damages caused by its negligence was inconsistent with international law and practice. The dissent emphasized that under maritime law, liability should be limited to the value of the vessel and freight pending at the end of voyage - a principle widely recognized internationally but ignored by majority’s ruling. This deviation from established norms could potentially harm American shipping interests abroad as it might provoke retaliatory measures from other nations whose citizens or corporations are subjected to unlimited liability in U.S courts while their own laws provide only limited liability.