The Propeller Burlington case in 1890 revolved around a dispute over maritime law and the liability of ship owners for damages. The steamship "Burlington" collided with another vessel, causing significant damage to both ships. The owners of the other vessel sued for compensation, but the owners of the Burlington claimed limited liability under federal statute which stated that a ship owner's financial responsibility was capped at their interest in the vessel after an accident. However, this conflicted with Michigan state law which did not recognize such limitations on liability. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Burlington’s owners stating that federal maritime laws superseded conflicting state laws when it came to navigation and commerce matters on navigable waters within U.S jurisdiction. Therefore, they held that shipowners could limit their liabilities according to federal statutes regardless of contrary provisions under state law.

In the dissenting opinion for The Propeller Burlington case, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a vessel liable for damages caused by its cargo contradicted established maritime law. The dissenting justices contended that liability should be limited to cases where negligence or fault could be proven on part of the ship owner or crew. They believed this ruling would create an undue burden on shipping companies and potentially disrupt trade, as they would now have to bear responsibility for any damage their cargo might cause without having any control over those goods once loaded onto their vessels. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "seaworthiness," arguing that it should only apply to physical condition and equipment of a ship rather than including suitability of its cargo. Thus, in their view, if a vessel is seaworthy but still causes harm due to its dangerous cargo - something beyond owners' control - then such incidents shouldn't result in automatic liability.