In the case of Constable v. National Steamship Company, 1893, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a ship owner could limit their liability for lost cargo due to negligence. The plaintiff, Constable & Co., had shipped goods on one of National Steamship's vessels which were subsequently damaged during transport due to alleged negligence by the steamship company. The bill of lading issued by National included a clause that limited its liability in cases of loss or damage caused by neglect or default. However, this limitation was challenged as being contrary to public policy and therefore void. The court ruled in favor of the defendant (National Steamship Company), stating that such limitations are not against public policy if they do not exempt carriers from all responsibility for losses resulting from their own fault or misconduct but only limit their liability within reasonable bounds agreed upon between parties involved in shipping contracts.

In the dissenting opinion for Constable v. National Steamship Company, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and legal principles regarding maritime law. He contended that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by an independent contractor unless it could be proven that they were negligent in their selection or supervision of said contractor. In this case, he believed there was no evidence to suggest such negligence on part of the ship owner. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "seaworthiness," arguing it should only pertain to physical conditions and equipment onboard rather than encompassing crew competence as well. This broader definition would unfairly burden ship owners who cannot reasonably ensure every action taken by their crews is correct or prudent at all times.