In the case of Irvine v. The Hesper, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a vessel, the Hesper, was liable for damages caused by a collision with another vessel, the Irvine. The Hesper had been chartered by the Irvine to transport goods from one port to another. The Irvine argued that the Hesper was liable for the damages caused by the collision because the Hesper had failed to exercise due care and caution in navigating the vessel. The Supreme Court held that the Hesper was liable for the damages caused by the collision. The Court found that the Hesper had failed to exercise due care and caution in navigating the vessel, and that the Hesper had breached its duty to the Irvine. The Court also held that the Hesper was liable for the damages caused by the collision even though the Irvine had not been negligent in its own navigation of the vessel. The Court's decision in this case established that a vessel chartered by another vessel is liable for damages caused by a collision, even if the chartered vessel was not negligent in its own navigation. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving collisions between vessels.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Irvine v. The Hesper, argued that the court should have found for the plaintiff on their claim against a vessel owner for damages caused by an explosion onboard. The dissent disagreed with the majority's ruling that there was no evidence to support a finding of negligence and instead argued that it was reasonable to infer from circumstantial evidence presented at trial that someone had acted negligently in causing or failing to prevent an explosion aboard the ship. Furthermore, they noted that even if negligence could not be established, then liability should still attach under maritime law due to unseaworthiness of the vessel as evidenced by its condition prior to and after said incident. Ultimately, this dissent concluded that since there were sufficient facts present which would allow a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff’s claims against defendant’s vessel owner, then such judgment should stand rather than being overturned by appellate courts based solely upon lack of direct proof regarding negligent conduct or unseaworthiness