In the 1899 U.S. Supreme Court case, The Newfoundland, a dispute arose over damages caused by a collision between two vessels - The City of Rome and The Newfoundland. Both ships were found to be at fault for the accident; however, it was determined that the owners of The City of Rome had already paid more than their share in damages. Therefore, they sought reimbursement from the owners of The Newfoundland for this excess amount. Initially, lower courts ruled against them based on maritime law principles which generally split damage costs equally when both parties are at fault (the "both-to-blame" rule). However, upon reaching the Supreme Court it was decided that an exception should be made due to an existing statute in British law (under which The Newfoundland operated) known as 'The Maritime Conventions Act 1911'. This act held shipowners responsible only for their proportionate part in causing any damage during such incidents. Thus reversing previous rulings and ordering partial reimbursement to be given back to those who owned 'The City Of Rome', setting precedent about international maritime laws applicability within US jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for The Newfoundland case, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a ship liable for damages caused by ice thrown overboard was incorrect. This perspective held that there is no maritime law or general principle of liability which would make a vessel responsible in such circumstances. It emphasized that ice on deck is not an inherent danger and its removal does not create any extraordinary risk to other vessels. Furthermore, it pointed out that if every act of throwing something overboard from a ship could potentially lead to liability, this would result in an unworkable standard with far-reaching implications beyond what has been traditionally recognized under maritime law. Therefore, according to this viewpoint, the court should have ruled against imposing liability on the defendant's vessel.