James Udall, the libellant and appellant in this case, was suing Marshall O. Roberts and others for damages caused by a collision between his vessel, the steam-ship Ohio, and another ship owned by Roberts. The collision had occurred on Lake Erie near Buffalo Harbor while both ships were under full sail. Udall alleged that he suffered losses due to negligence of those operating the other vessel during the incident. In response to his claims of negligence against them, Roberts argued that there was no evidence presented which could prove their fault or liability in causing any damage as a result of the accident. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of James Udall based on its finding that it was more likely than not that those operating Robert's ship had acted negligently during the incident leading up to and including when it collided with Udal's boat; thus making them liable for any resulting damages incurred by him from said event. This ruling set an important precedent regarding maritime law at sea where one party can be held responsible if they are found negligent even without direct proof being provided linking them directly to causing harm or injury through their actions or lack thereof

In the case of James Udall v. The Steam-Ship Ohio, Marshall O. Roberts and Others, Claimants, Justice Grier wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the libellant (Udall) was entitled to recover damages for his injuries sustained while on board the steam-ship Ohio. He noted that although there were no express contracts between Udall and any of those responsible for operating or maintaining the ship, it was clear from all evidence presented that they had assumed responsibility over him as a passenger aboard their vessel and thus owed him a duty of care. Furthermore, he argued that even if there had been an implied contract between them – such as one based on custom or usage – then this would still be sufficient to establish liability against them since they should have known better than to put passengers at risk by failing to maintain proper safety standards onboard their vessel. In conclusion, Justice Grier believed that Udall’s claim should not have been dismissed without further consideration given its merits; instead it should have gone forward so he could receive just compensation for his losses due to negligence on behalf of those responsible for running the steam-ship Ohio.