In the 1932 case of New York Central Railroad Co. v. The Talisman, Long Island R. Co., Claimant, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine liability for a collision between two vessels in New York Harbor - one owned by the New York Central Railroad Company and another named "The Talisman," which was under charter to the Long Island Rail Road Company at that time. The court ruled that both parties were equally at fault for not maintaining proper lookouts or taking adequate precautions given visibility conditions on that day due to foggy weather, despite having knowledge about each other's presence in close proximity through signals exchanged prior to their meeting point. Therefore, it held both companies jointly responsible for damages incurred from this accident as per admiralty law principles governing maritime collisions where blame is shared among involved parties based on their respective degrees of negligence contributing towards such incidents.

In the dissenting opinion for New York Central Railroad Co. v. The Talisman, Long Island R. Co., Claimant, 1932, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold the New York Central Railroad Company liable for damages caused by its tugboat was incorrect and inconsistent with established maritime law principles. The dissenting justices believed that liability should be determined based on whether or not a vessel is in navigation when an accident occurs - if it is not in navigation at the time of an incident then its owner cannot be held responsible for any resulting damage under maritime law. In this case, they contended that since the tugboat had been docked and out of commission during winter months when ice damaged a bridge owned by Long Island Rail Road Company (the claimant), it could not have been "in navigation" as required to impose liability on its owner under existing legal standards.