In the 1915 U.S. Supreme Court case, The Raithmoor, the court examined a dispute over salvage rights. The steamship Raithmoor had run aground near Cape Hatteras and was abandoned by its crew. A group of local residents boarded the ship to save it but were unsuccessful due to harsh weather conditions. Later, another group managed to refloat and repair the vessel before returning it to its owners. Both groups claimed compensation for their efforts under maritime salvage law which allows those who voluntarily help save a distressed vessel at sea without any pre-existing duty or contract are entitled to be rewarded proportionate with their services provided they have been successful in saving either all or part of that property from impending peril at sea. The court ruled that only those whose actions directly contribute towards successfully salvaging a ship can claim compensation under this law - meaning only the second group could claim reward as they were responsible for actually saving The Raithmoor while first party's attempt ended up being futile because of adverse weather conditions despite them risking their lives trying so.

The dissenting opinion in the case of The Raithmoor, 1915, argued that the majority's decision to award damages for a collision between two vessels was incorrect. They contended that both ships were at fault and should share responsibility for the accident. According to them, it was unjustifiable to place all blame on one party when there were clear indications of negligence from both sides. This perspective emphasized fairness and shared accountability as key principles in maritime law disputes involving collisions. It also highlighted concerns about setting a precedent where one vessel could be held entirely responsible even if evidence suggested mutual culpability.