In The Grotius, Sheafe, Master case of 1815, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a ship captain had acted negligently in failing to take proper precautions against pirates. The plaintiff argued that the captain should have taken more care when sailing near known pirate-infested waters and failed to do so. However, the court found that while there may have been some negligence on behalf of the captain in not taking extra precautions against piracy given his knowledge of potential danger in those waters, it did not rise to a level where he could be held liable for damages caused by pirates attacking his vessel. Ultimately they ruled that since no one can predict or prevent an attack from pirates with any degree of certainty then it would be unreasonable and unjustified for captains who sail through such areas to bear responsibility for losses due solely to their actions.

In The Grotius, Sheafe, Master case, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a vessel that had been captured by an enemy during war and then recaptured by its original owners could be considered to have been “lawfully” recaptured. The majority opinion held that because the vessel had not yet been condemned in a prize court at the time of its recapture it should be considered as having never left lawful ownership. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly he argued that since there is no legal definition for what constitutes “lawful” capture or recapture of vessels during wartime any such determination must necessarily depend upon facts specific to each individual case; secondly he maintained that even if one were to accept the majority's interpretation of lawfulness in this particular instance it would still be necessary for a prize court to determine whether or not damages should be awarded against those responsible for capturing and holding onto the vessel before concluding who owned it lawfully. In conclusion Justice Johnson argued strongly against allowing mere technicalities like lack of condemnation proceedings to override established principles regarding property rights and maritime warfare.