In the 1895 Supreme Court case, The Bayonne, a dispute arose over damages caused by a collision between two vessels - The Bayonne and The Kate Southern. Both ships were found to be at fault for not following navigational rules. However, the owners of both vessels disagreed on how much each party should pay in damages. According to maritime law at that time, when both parties are equally at fault in an accident, they must share the total damage costs equally. But this principle was challenged because one vessel (The Kate Southern) was worth less than the other (The Bayonne). Therefore it seemed unfair for its owner to bear half of all losses which exceeded its value while causing lesser damage to The Bayonne due to her smaller size and weight. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that despite their difference in values or sizes or extent of damage caused by them individually during such accidents; if both vessels are found guilty then they have equal responsibility towards bearing loss/damage cost irrespective of their individual values/sizes/extent-of-damage-caused-by-them-individually.

In the dissenting opinion for The Bayonne case in 1895, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to hold a ship liable for damages caused by its wake was incorrect. He contended that there were no specific laws or regulations stipulating how fast a vessel should travel within harbor limits and thus it was unfair to penalize the ship based on an arbitrary standard of speed. Furthermore, he pointed out that if every passing vessel could be held responsible for any damage caused by their wake, it would lead to endless litigation and potentially cripple maritime commerce. Therefore, unless there is clear negligence or violation of established rules on part of the ship’s crew, they should not be held accountable for such incidents.