In the case of Southern Pacific Company et al. v. Olympian Dredging Company, 1922, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Southern Pacific Company and its co-defendants (collectively referred to as "Southern Pacific"). The dispute arose when a dredge owned by Olympian Dredging Company collided with a ferry operated by Southern Pacific in San Francisco Bay. The lower court had found both parties at fault for the collision and divided damages equally between them. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision based on maritime law principles that require each vessel involved in a collision to take all possible measures to avoid it once danger becomes apparent. In this case, evidence showed that while both vessels were initially at fault due to their high speeds given foggy conditions; only Olympian failed to take appropriate evasive action after realizing danger was imminent - thus making it solely responsible for resulting damages from the accident.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Southern Pacific Company et al. v. Olympian Dredging Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of maritime law. The dissent emphasized that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by an independent contractor, unless it can be proven that they were negligent or had control over the contractor's operations. They believed this principle applied even if the damage occurred to a fixed structure like a bridge, as opposed to another vessel. In their view, Southern Pacific Co., which owned the drawbridge damaged by Olympian Dredging Co.'s dredge boat, did not demonstrate sufficient negligence on its part nor control over Olympian’s operations to warrant liability for repairs.