In the 1918 case of Standard Varnish Works v. Steamship Bris, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and damages incurred during transport. The plaintiff, Standard Varnish Works had contracted with the defendant for transportation of goods by sea from New York to Buenos Aires. However, due to negligence in stowage by the ship's crew, some cargo was damaged en route. The court held that under maritime law and according to Harter Act (a federal statute), a carrier is not liable for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or management if they have exercised due diligence to make sure that their vessel is seaworthy at departure time; this includes properly manning, equipping and supplying it as well as making it fit for voyage’s purpose. In this case though, since there was evidence showing lack of care in loading/stowing cargo which led directly to its damage - an aspect covered under 'seaworthiness' - liability fell upon defendants despite them having no actual knowledge about such negligent conduct.

In the dissenting opinion for Standard Varnish Works v. Steamship Bris, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. disagreed with the majority's decision to hold a steamship liable for damages caused by an explosion of highly flammable varnish carried on board as cargo. He argued that there was no negligence on part of the ship because it had followed all necessary precautions and regulations regarding transportation of such dangerous goods. The explosion, according to him, was unforeseeable and therefore not something that could be held against the ship or its crew in terms of liability. Furthermore, he contended that if every accident were deemed foreseeable simply because it happened would make carriers insurers instead of transporters which is not their role nor responsibility under law.