In the case of Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, Limited as Owner of the Steamship Titanic v. Mellor (1913), the Supreme Court examined whether or not a ship owner could limit its liability for loss resulting from negligence to an amount equal to its interest in the vessel and pending freight. The court ruled that under U.S law, a ship owner can indeed limit their liability if they can prove that they had no knowledge of any negligence on board their vessel. However, it was found that this limitation does not apply when there is loss of life involved due to negligent navigation by crew members who are considered "managing agents" - those with enough authority and discretion in performance duties so as to be deemed extension of employer's personality. In such cases, owners cannot claim ignorance because these individuals' actions are seen as representative of them. This ruling set precedent for future maritime lawsuits involving similar circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, Limited as Owner of the Steamship Titanic v. Mellor (1913), it was argued that the majority's decision to limit liability based on a ship's post-voyage value rather than its pre-voyage value contradicted established maritime law principles. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling unfairly favored shipping companies at the expense of victims and their families by reducing potential compensation amounts. They also disagreed with how the majority interpreted relevant statutes, arguing they were designed to protect claimants' rights in cases where ships were lost or damaged beyond repair during voyages. In addition, they expressed concerns about setting a precedent that could encourage reckless behavior by shipping companies since limiting liability would reduce incentives for ensuring safety measures are properly implemented and maintained.