In the 1907 U.S. Supreme Court case, The Hamilton, a dispute arose over damages caused by a collision between two vessels - The Hamilton and The F.J. Cheney in Lake Erie. Both ships were found to be at fault; however, the owners of each vessel disagreed on how liability should be divided for the damage incurred during their accident. Traditionally, maritime law dictated that when both parties are equally at fault in an incident like this one, they share the costs of damages equally as well (a principle known as 'equal division'). However, due to unique circumstances surrounding this particular case – including differing degrees of culpability and varying levels of damage sustained by each ship – it was determined that equal division was not appropriate here. The Supreme Court ruled instead for 'proportional division', meaning that each party would pay according to its degree of blame and extent of harm done. This decision marked a significant departure from traditional maritime law principles regarding shared liability in cases where both parties are at fault but have contributed unequally to resulting damages.

In the dissenting opinion for The Hamilton case in 1907, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a ship liable for damages caused by its wake was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were no grounds to establish negligence on part of the ship’s crew or any violation of statutory rules governing navigation. They contended that such incidents are inevitable risks associated with navigating waters and should not be subject to liability unless clear negligence can be proven. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential negative implications this ruling could have on maritime commerce as it might lead to excessive caution and inefficiency out of fear of litigation.