In Thomas Maguire, Claimant of the Steamer Goliath, Appellant v. Stephen Card, Libellant, the Supreme Court heard a case concerning an incident that occurred in 1853 involving two steamboats on Lake Erie. The appellant claimed ownership of one boat and argued that it had been damaged by another vessel owned by the libellant during a stormy night at sea. The lower court found for the libellant and awarded damages to him based on his claim that he was not responsible for any damage caused due to negligence or lack of skill from his crew members while navigating through rough waters. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court it was determined that there were no grounds for liability as both vessels were equally exposed to danger due to their location in open water with no navigational aids available; thus ruling against awarding damages and reversing judgment from below.

In Thomas Maguire, Claimant of the Steamer Goliath, Appellant v. Stephen Card, Libellant (1858), Justice Nelson wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the lower court's decision should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. He believed that there was sufficient evidence to support the claim of negligence against Maguire as master of the steamer Goliath and thus Card had established his right to recover damages from him. The majority opinion held that since no specific act or omission on behalf of Maguire could be identified as causing damage to Card's vessel, he could not be found liable for any losses incurred by it. However, Justice Nelson disagreed with this conclusion and argued that even if an exact cause cannot be determined due to lack of evidence or other circumstances beyond one’s control, a party can still be held responsible for their negligent actions if they are proven through circumstantial proof such as testimony from witnesses who observed events leading up to an incident or accident at sea. Therefore in this case he felt there was enough circumstantial evidence presented by both parties during trial which warranted reversing the lower court’s ruling so additional proceedings may take place where liability can properly assessed based on all available facts before them