The U.S. Supreme Court case Langnes, Owner of the Diesel Halibut Vessel Aloha (1930) revolved around a maritime dispute involving damages to two vessels, the "Aloha" and the "Admiral Watson." The Admiral Watson was damaged when it collided with another vessel while trying to avoid hitting the Aloha which had been anchored in a busy channel. The owner of Admiral Watson filed for limited liability against potential claims arising from this incident. Meanwhile, Langnes, owner of Aloha sued for damages caused by collision with Admiral Watson's anchor chain as it maneuvered away from his ship. Initially, lower courts ruled that both parties were at fault but assigned greater blame on Admiral Watson due to its dangerous navigation decision leading up to collision. However, upon appeal by Langnes arguing that he should not be held liable since his vessel was stationary during accident; Supreme Court reversed previous rulings stating that both ships were equally responsible because even though Aloha was stationary at time of accident; it shouldn't have been anchored in such a busy channel thereby contributing significantly towards occurrence of said event.

In the dissenting opinion for Langnes v. Green, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a limitation of liability was incorrect because it ignored established maritime law principles. He contended that under these principles, an owner can only limit their liability if they lack privity or knowledge about the unseaworthiness of their vessel at the time it leaves port. In this case, he believed there was enough evidence to suggest that Langnes knew about his ship's faulty condition and therefore should not be allowed to limit his liability for damages caused by its sinking. Furthermore, Justice Stone disagreed with how much weight the majority gave to certain pieces of evidence in reaching their conclusion and felt they had misinterpreted some key facts in favor of Langnes.