In the case of Jackson et al. v. S.S. Archimedes, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining liability for damages caused to a wharf owned by plaintiffs during a storm in 1924 when it was hit by the defendant's ship, S.S Archimedes. The lower court had ruled that while both parties were negligent -the ship for not taking adequate precautions and the wharf owners for failing to maintain their property properly- they should share equally in bearing the loss incurred from this incident under maritime law principles of divided damages rule. However, upon appeal, Justice Holmes delivered an opinion on behalf of unanimous Supreme Court reversing this decision and ruling solely against defendants (S.S Archimedes). He stated that although there might have been some negligence on part of plaintiff’s maintenance practices; such minor faults did not contribute directly to accident or increase its severity hence cannot be considered as causative factors under maritime law. The court further clarified that only those acts which materially contribute towards occurrence or escalation of damage can be held accountable under shared responsibility principle otherwise known as 'divided damages' rule in maritime laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Jackson et al. v. S.S. Archimedes, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to hold a ship liable for damages caused by its wake was inconsistent with maritime law principles and precedent cases. He contended that it is unreasonable to expect ships to completely avoid creating wakes in navigable waters, as this is an inherent part of their operation. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were no specific regulations or laws violated by the ship's actions in this case; thus, liability should not be imposed based on general negligence principles alone without clear evidence of fault or misconduct from the ship’s crew or captain.