The Adventure of the Master was a United States Supreme Court case that centered around the legality of an insurance policy. The plaintiff, John Fitch, had purchased a marine insurance policy from defendant Thomas Gibbons for his vessel called “The Adventure”. When the ship encountered difficulties and ultimately sunk in 1812, Fitch sought to collect on his policy but Gibbons refused to pay out citing that he did not have authority to issue such policies under New York law. In response, Fitch argued that since Congress had granted him exclusive rights over navigation within certain states via their Commerce Clause powers then it should also be assumed they intended for him to be able to purchase valid insurance policies as well. Ultimately however, the court ruled against this argument and found in favor of Gibbons stating that while Congress could grant exclusive privileges related directly with navigation activities they could not extend those same privileges into other areas like commerce or contract law which were reserved solely for state governments at this time period.

In The Adventure, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a master of a vessel could be held liable for damages caused by his negligence. In an 8-1 decision, the majority found that he could not be held liable because there was no contract between him and those who suffered losses due to his negligence. Justice Johnson wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that masters should indeed be held responsible for their negligent acts while on duty. He reasoned that since they are entrusted with such great responsibility over others' lives and property, it is only fair to hold them accountable when something goes wrong as a result of their actions or omissions. Furthermore, Johnson noted that this would serve as an incentive for masters to exercise greater care when performing their duties aboard vessels at sea.