In Ship Societe, Martinson, Master (1815), the Supreme Court held that a master of a vessel was not liable for damages caused by his negligence in failing to properly secure cargo on board. The plaintiff had brought suit against the master and owners of the ship alleging that they were negligent in their duty to safely stow and secure goods loaded onto the vessel. The court found that while it is true masters have an obligation to exercise reasonable care when loading cargo onto ships, they are not responsible for any damage or loss resulting from such negligence. Furthermore, since there was no contract between them and those who owned or shipped goods aboard their vessels, they could not be held liable for any losses suffered as a result of their actions. This ruling established precedent which has been followed ever since; namely that masters are only responsible for exercising due diligence when loading cargo but cannot be held accountable if something goes wrong during transit.

In the dissenting opinion of Ship Societe, Martinson, Master (1815), Justice Story argued that a master of a vessel should not be held liable for damages caused by his crew. He reasoned that since the master was not present when the damage occurred and had no control over what happened, he could not be responsible for it. Furthermore, Justice Story stated that if masters were to be held liable in such cases then they would have to constantly monitor their crews' actions which would lead to an increase in costs and difficulty managing vessels. He concluded by stating that holding masters accountable for acts committed by their crews without any fault or negligence on their part is unjustified and contrary to established maritime law principles.