The U.S. Supreme Court case Exxon Company, U.S.A., et al. v. Sofec, Inc., et al., 1995 revolved around a dispute over liability for damages caused by an oil spill from the Exxon Houston off the coast of Hawaii in 1989. The mooring system designed and installed by Sofec failed during a storm causing the ship to drift and collide with a coral reef resulting in significant environmental damage due to spilled oil. In lower courts, Sofec was found solely liable for all damages as their faulty equipment was deemed the primary cause of accident despite potential negligence on part of Exxon's crew who could have avoided collision had they acted appropriately after realizing that ship is adrift. However, upon appeal to Supreme Court it ruled that under maritime law while Sofec can be held responsible for causing initial drifting situation but cannot be held accountable for subsequent collision which resulted from independent negligent actions (or lack thereof) by Exxon's crew post-drifting incident; thus overturning previous rulings holding Sofec fully liable.

In the dissenting opinion for Exxon Company, U.S.A., et al. v. Sofec, Inc., et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to absolve Exxon of liability was incorrect because it failed to consider whether Exxon's negligence contributed to its own damages after the initial failure of Sofec’s mooring system. He believed that a reasonable jury could have found that if not for Exxon's negligent navigation, no oil spill would have occurred or at least been less severe even with a faulty mooring system in place. Thus, he disagreed with the majority view on proximate cause and contended that both parties’ negligence should be considered when determining liability and damages.