In Piatt's Administrator v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States was liable for damages caused by the destruction of a private vessel by a United States Navy vessel. The plaintiff, the administrator of the estate of the deceased owner of the vessel, argued that the United States was liable for the damages because the Navy vessel had acted negligently in destroying the vessel. The United States argued that it was not liable because the destruction of the vessel was done in the course of a military operation and was therefore not subject to the same standards of negligence as a civilian vessel. The Supreme Court held that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the destruction of the vessel. The Court reasoned that the destruction of the vessel was done in the course of a military operation and was therefore not subject to the same standards of negligence as a civilian vessel. The Court further held that the United States was not liable for the damages because the destruction of the vessel was done in the course of a military operation and was therefore not subject to the same standards of negligence as a civilian vessel. The Court also noted that the United States had acted in good faith in destroying the vessel and that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the United States had acted negligently. As a result, the Court held that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the destruction of the vessel.

In Piatt's Administrator v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a plaintiff who sought damages from the United States for injuries sustained in a collision between two vessels on navigable waters. The majority opinion held that such actions could not be maintained against the government without its consent and dismissed the case. In dissent, Justice Field argued that Congress had given district courts exclusive original cognizance of all civil cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including those involving collisions between vessels on navigable waters. He further noted that this grant of authority included suits against any party whatsoever, including foreign governments or their agents as well as citizens or corporations within our own country; thus it should include suits against the United States itself unless there is some other provision which expressly excludes them from its operation. As no such exclusion existed in this case, he concluded that federal courts did have jurisdiction over claims brought by plaintiffs seeking damages from the government for injuries sustained in vessel collisions on navigable waters and would have allowed suit to proceed accordingly.