In the case of Clyde-Mallory Lines v. The Eglantine et al., 1942, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Clyde-Mallory Lines. This dispute arose when a tugboat owned by Clyde-Mallory Lines collided with another vessel, causing damage to both vessels and cargo loss for third parties. A lower court had previously decided that both vessels were equally at fault and divided damages accordingly between them. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court held that under maritime law (the "divided damages rule"), if two ships are found mutually at fault in a collision resulting in property damage, each ship is responsible for half of its own losses as well as half of the other's - irrespective of any claims from third parties who suffered cargo loss due to this incident. Therefore, it was determined that these third-party claims should not be factored into calculations dividing up costs between colliding vessels.

In the dissenting opinion for Clyde-Mallory Lines v. The Eglantine et al., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to hold a private tugboat company liable for damages caused by an enemy submarine was unjust and inconsistent with maritime law principles. He contended that the collision between two vessels, which resulted in one sinking, occurred due to wartime conditions beyond anyone's control rather than negligence on part of the tugboat operator. According to him, it was unfair and unprecedented to hold a neutral party responsible for damage inflicted during military conflict when they had no ability or authority to prevent such incidents from happening. Furthermore, he believed this ruling could potentially deter other companies from providing essential services during war times out of fear of being held accountable for unforeseeable events related directly or indirectly to warfare activities.