In the case of Resolute and Northerner, 1863, two ships collided in a fog off the coast of New York. The owner of one ship sued for damages caused by the other vessel's negligence. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that both vessels were equally at fault due to their failure to take proper precautions when navigating in foggy conditions. The court also found that each party was responsible for half of any resulting damages since they had both acted negligently and failed to exercise reasonable care under such circumstances. This decision established an important precedent regarding maritime law and responsibility in cases involving collisions between vessels on navigable waters.

In the case of Resolute and Northerner, 1863, Justice Nelson wrote a dissenting opinion. He argued that the majority's decision was wrong because it failed to consider an important point: whether or not there had been any actual damage done by one vessel to another. According to Nelson, this should have been taken into account when determining liability for damages in such cases. Furthermore, he believed that the court should have considered other factors as well - such as fault on either side - before making its ruling. Ultimately, he concluded that since no evidence of actual damage had been presented during trial proceedings and since both vessels were equally at fault for their collision with each other, neither party could be held liable for damages caused by the incident.