In the 1996 case of Saratoga Fishing Company v. J.M. Martinac & Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter related to maritime law and damages for lost equipment in cases of shipwreck or sinking due to negligence by manufacturers or suppliers. The court held that when calculating damages, not only should the value of the vessel itself be considered but also any additional equipment added after its initial sale if it was not replaced before resale (in this case, fishing nets). This decision clarified an earlier ruling from 1918 where "added" items were deemed part of a ship's total value for damage calculations only if they were present at original delivery rather than added later on by owners.

In the dissenting opinion for Saratoga Fishing Company v. J.M. Martinac & Co., Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision to include added equipment in a vessel's value when calculating damages under maritime law was inconsistent with previous rulings and could lead to unpredictable results. She contended that this approach would allow plaintiffs to recover more than their actual losses, as they could claim damages not only for lost vessels but also for any additional equipment installed on those vessels after purchase, regardless of whether it increased the ship’s overall value or functionality. This interpretation, she warned, might encourage excessive litigation over what constitutes an "addition" and its worth at different points in time - issues irrelevant from a policy standpoint since they do not affect either safe navigation or optimal use of waterways.