In the 1901 Supreme Court case, The Kensington, a dispute arose over damages caused by a collision between two vessels: The Kensington and The Turpentine. Both ships were found to be at fault for the accident; however, they disagreed on how much each party should pay in damages. According to maritime law at that time, when both parties are equally responsible for an incident, they must share the costs of damage equally. However, this rule was challenged because it did not take into account that one vessel may have been more valuable than the other or suffered greater loss from the collision. In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld this equal division principle despite these considerations. It ruled that regardless of individual ship value or extent of damage incurred by either party involved in such incidents under mutual fault circumstances - liability is shared evenly between them.

In the dissenting opinion for The Kensington case in 1901, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a ship liable for damages caused by its cargo of oil leaking into another vessel was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that liability should only be assigned if there is negligence or fault on part of the ship owner. They contended that since there were no regulations at the time requiring ships carrying oil to have special compartments or precautions against leakage, and as such, it would be unfair to hold them responsible for an accident they could not foresee nor prevent. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in applying maritime law principles regarding damage caused by jettisoned cargo versus leaked cargo. This disagreement with the majority’s ruling highlighted differing interpretations of responsibility under maritime law and emphasized concerns about fairness and predictability within this legal framework.