In the case of Dixilyn Drilling Corp. v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., 1962, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide on a dispute over damages caused by an oil barge that broke free from its moorings during a storm and collided with another vessel. The owner of the damaged vessel sued both the owner of the runaway barge and also Dixilyn Drilling Corporation, which had chartered it at that time. The key issue in this case was whether or not Dixilyn could be held liable for negligence even though they were not directly involved in operating or controlling the barge when it broke loose due to bad weather conditions. The court ruled against Dixilyn, holding them responsible for damages because under maritime law, charterers are considered owners pro hac vice (for this occasion) and thus bear responsibility for any damage their chartered vessels cause regardless if they have direct control over them or not.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Dixilyn Drilling Corp. v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., 1962, argued that the majority's decision to hold Dixilyn liable for damages was incorrect due to a misinterpretation of maritime law and negligence principles. The dissent contended that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove that Dixilyn had been negligent or reckless in its actions leading up to the accident involving one of its drilling barges and a tugboat owned by Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. Furthermore, it was asserted that even if negligence could be established on part of Dixilyn, this should not automatically result in liability as per maritime law norms which require proof beyond reasonable doubt about causation between alleged negligence and damage caused.