Inman Steamship Company v. Tinker was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a steamship company could be held liable for the death of a passenger due to negligence. The plaintiff, Tinker, was the administrator of the estate of a passenger who had died while on board a steamship owned by the defendant, Inman Steamship Company. Tinker argued that the steamship company was liable for the death of the passenger due to its negligence in failing to provide a safe environment for the passengers. The Supreme Court held that the steamship company was liable for the death of the passenger. The Court reasoned that the steamship company had a duty to provide a safe environment for its passengers and that it had breached this duty by failing to do so. The Court also noted that the steamship company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in providing a safe environment for its passengers and that it had failed to do so. The Court concluded that the steamship company was liable for the death of the passenger and awarded damages to the plaintiff. This case established the principle that steamship companies have a duty to provide a safe environment for their passengers and that they can be held liable for any injuries or deaths that occur due to their negligence.

Inman Steamship Company v. Tinker was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1877. The plaintiff, Inman Steamship Company, sued for damages after their vessel collided with another ship owned by the defendant, Tinker. The majority opinion held that Inman was entitled to recover its losses from Tinker due to his negligence in navigating his own vessel and failing to keep a proper lookout at sea. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that both vessels were equally negligent and thus neither party should be able to recover any damages as they had each contributed equally towards causing the collision. He argued that it would be unjust for one of them to receive compensation while absolving themselves of responsibility when both parties shared equal blame for what happened; instead he proposed an apportionment of liability between them based on their respective degrees of fault or negligence so as not to reward either side unfairly over the other.