| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the 1894 U.S. Supreme Court case, The Breakwater, a dispute arose over damages caused by a collision between two vessels: The Breakwater and The Conemaugh. Both ships were moving in foggy conditions when they collided near Philadelphia. Initially, the District Court ruled that both parties were at fault for not taking adequate precautions to prevent the accident due to poor visibility. However, upon appeal from The Breakwater's owners claiming their vessel was anchored during the incident and thus not responsible for any damage incurred by either party, this decision was overturned by Circuit Court which held only Conemaugh liable as it failed to maintain a proper lookout or slow down despite knowing about limited visibility due to fog. The case then reached Supreme Court where it upheld Circuit court’s ruling stating that while both vessels had an obligation of caution under such circumstances; however evidence showed that only Conemaugh violated these duties leading up to crash whereas there wasn't enough proof against Breakwater being underway during time of collision hence absolving them off liability.
In the dissenting opinion for The Breakwater case, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a ship liable for damages caused by its wake was unjust. The dissenting justices believed that the ship had not been operated negligently and thus should not be held responsible for any damage caused by its normal operation. They pointed out that all ships create wakes as part of their natural movement through water, and it is unreasonable to expect them to avoid causing any potential harm from this unavoidable consequence of sailing. Furthermore, they contended that if a dock or other structure cannot withstand these ordinary conditions without suffering damage, then it is poorly constructed or maintained and its owners should bear responsibility for any resulting losses. Therefore, in their view, holding ships accountable under such circumstances would set an unfair precedent which could have far-reaching implications on maritime law and commerce.