The Jason, a 1911 U.S. Supreme Court case, involved the interpretation of a clause in a bill of lading that limited the ship owner's liability for damage to cargo during transport. The dispute arose when cotton bales were damaged due to seawater entering through an open port hole on the ship named "Jason". The owners of the cargo sued for damages but their claim was rejected by lower courts because they had signed a contract limiting liability unless negligence could be proven. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court it held that under maritime law and international conventions, such clauses are not valid if there is any form of negligence or fault from part of carrier’s crew members which led to loss or damage. In this case since it was found out that one member left porthole open negligently causing sea water ingress damaging cotton bales; hence court ruled in favor of plaintiffs (cargo owners) holding defendant (shipowner) liable for damages.

In the dissenting opinion for The Jason case in 1911, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a ship owner to limit their liability for damaged cargo due to negligence of its crew went against established maritime law. It was contended that such an interpretation could potentially lead to abuses by ship owners who might not feel compelled to ensure their vessels were properly maintained or manned. Furthermore, it was suggested that this ruling contradicted previous court decisions and international legal principles which held ship owners accountable for any damage caused by their negligence or failure in duty. This dissent emphasized on upholding accountability and responsibility over providing protections under contract clauses.