In the case of McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde and River Don Castings Ltd., 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over damages resulting from an accident during a maritime crane operation in which a piece of equipment was lost at sea. The court held that when determining liability for damage to or loss of goods in such cases, each party involved should be responsible only for their proportional share based on fault rather than applying joint and several liability rules (where any one defendant can be held liable for all damages). This decision marked a significant shift away from traditional admiralty law principles towards more modern comparative negligence standards.

In the dissenting opinion for McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde and River Don Castings Ltd., Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to apply federal common law rather than Louisiana state law in determining how liability should be apportioned among multiple defendants found liable for a maritime accident. He argued that there was no significant federal interest at stake that would justify overriding state law, especially given the Court’s previous recognition of states’ interests in regulating conduct within their borders. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on policy considerations to shape its interpretation of existing laws instead of adhering strictly to legal texts or precedents. In his view, this approach overstepped judicial boundaries and encroached upon legislative powers by effectively creating new rules without clear statutory or constitutional authority.