In the case of W. A. Marshall & Company, Incorporated v. S.S. President Arthur (1928), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining liability for damages incurred during a collision between two vessels in New York Harbor - one owned by W.A Marshall & Co., and the other being S.S President Arthur, operated by United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation (USSB). The District Court initially found both parties equally at fault and divided the damages accordingly; however, this decision was reversed on appeal to favor USSB entirely due to an alleged violation of navigation rules by Marshall's vessel. The Supreme Court disagreed with this reversal and reinstated the original judgment from District court that apportioned equal blame onto both parties involved in the accident as they were both negligent: USSB failed to maintain a proper lookout while Marshall violated "the narrow channel rule" which requires ships not impede others' passage within such channels if avoidable. This ruling reinforced principles of shared responsibility when multiple factors contribute towards maritime accidents under American admiralty law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of W. A. Marshall & Company, Incorporated v. S.S President Arthur argued that the majority's decision to hold the ship liable for damages was incorrect because it failed to consider key factors related to maritime law and contract interpretation. The dissent pointed out that under maritime law, a carrier is not responsible for losses resulting from inherent defects in goods being transported unless they had knowledge of such defects beforehand - which was not proven in this case. Moreover, it emphasized that contracts should be interpreted based on their plain language and intent at the time they were made rather than applying new interpretations retrospectively as done by the majority ruling.