In the 1890 Supreme Court case, The Steamship Haverton, a dispute arose over damages caused by a collision between two vessels: The British steamship Haverton and the American schooner Charles E. Soper. Both ships blamed each other for not following international navigation rules designed to prevent collisions at sea. Initially, the district court ruled in favor of the Haverton but on appeal, it was found that both vessels were at fault because they failed to take appropriate evasive action when they saw each other's lights before colliding off New Jersey coast in foggy weather conditions. The Supreme Court upheld this decision stating that under maritime law if both ships are deemed responsible for causing a collision due to negligence or failure to adhere to regulations then liability should be divided equally among them regardless of their size or power. This ruling set an important precedent as it established shared responsibility and equal division of damages in cases where multiple parties contribute towards an accident at sea.

In the dissenting opinion for The Steamship Haverton case, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold the ship liable for damages caused by a collision was incorrect. This argument hinged on two main points: firstly, that there were discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding whether or not proper signals had been given; and secondly, that even if these signals had not been properly given, this did not necessarily mean that the ship was at fault for causing the collision. It was suggested instead that other factors could have contributed to this accident such as weather conditions or mechanical failure. Therefore, according to this view, it would be unjust to place full responsibility on one party without considering all possible contributing factors.