The Emily and the Caroline, Broadfoot, Claimant was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1824. The dispute arose when two ships collided off of Cape Henry in Virginia. The owners of one ship, the Emily, sued for damages against those who owned the other vessel involved in the collision -the Caroline- claiming that their negligence caused it to happen. In response to this claim, those responsible for operating and maintaining the Caroline argued that they were not liable because they had taken all reasonable precautions necessary to prevent such an incident from occurring. After hearing both sides’ arguments and reviewing evidence presented by each party during trial proceedings, Chief Justice John Marshall ultimately ruled that although there may have been some degree of fault on behalf of either or both parties involved in causing this accident; however due to lack of sufficient proof as well as conflicting testimony given at trial no definitive conclusion could be made regarding liability or responsibility for damages incurred from said event.

In the case of The Emily and The Caroline, Broadfoot, Claimant (1824), Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the majority's decision was too narrow in scope and failed to consider other relevant factors. Specifically, he disagreed with their interpretation of the law regarding salvage awards for vessels lost at sea due to negligence or misconduct on behalf of those responsible for its care. He believed that if there were any mitigating circumstances which could be proven by evidence then they should be taken into consideration when determining an appropriate award amount. Furthermore, he argued that it was unfair to limit recovery only to cases where negligence or misconduct had been established beyond a reasonable doubt since this would leave many deserving claimants without recourse for damages suffered as a result of another’s actions or omissions. In conclusion, Justice Story felt strongly that all available facts should have been considered before making such an important ruling and urged his colleagues not to ignore potential mitigating circumstances which may exist in similar cases going forward.