The U.S. Supreme Court case Osaka Shosen Kaisha et al. v. Pacific Export Lumber Company in 1922 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of a shipping contract between the two parties involved, specifically regarding liability for damages to cargo during transit due to negligence or other causes not directly attributable to inherent risks of sea travel. The lumber company had sued the Japanese shipping line for losses incurred when their timber cargo was damaged by seawater during transport from Washington State to Japan, alleging that it was due to improper stowage and handling by the ship's crew - claims which were denied by Osaka Shosen Kaisha who argued they were absolved from such liabilities under their contract terms and existing maritime laws at that time. In its decision, however, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pacific Export Lumber Company stating that while carriers are generally exempted from "acts of God" or perils inherent with sea travel (like storms), they still bear responsibility for ensuring proper care and handling of goods entrusted unto them unless explicitly stated otherwise in their contracts; thus making them liable for any damage resulting from neglectful actions like poor stowage practices.

In the dissenting opinion for Osaka Shosen Kaisha et al. v. Pacific Export Lumber Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of maritime law. He contended that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by an unforeseeable event such as a storm, especially when there is no evidence of negligence or fault on their part. The justice further stated that it is unreasonable to expect ship owners to guarantee safe delivery under all circumstances since they cannot control natural disasters or other unpredictable events at sea. Therefore, he believed that the court erred in holding the defendants responsible for damage caused by heavy weather during transportation.