The Sea Witch was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1867. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the Sea Witch, a vessel, and the owners of the cargo it was carrying. The owners of the Sea Witch had contracted with the owners of the cargo to transport it from New York to San Francisco. However, the Sea Witch was damaged in a storm and the cargo was lost. The owners of the cargo sued the owners of the Sea Witch for damages. The Supreme Court held that the owners of the Sea Witch were not liable for the loss of the cargo. The Court reasoned that the Sea Witch had been damaged by a storm, which was an act of God, and thus the owners of the Sea Witch could not be held responsible for the loss of the cargo. The Court also held that the owners of the Sea Witch had taken all reasonable precautions to protect the cargo, and thus were not liable for the loss. The Sea Witch case established the principle that a vessel owner is not liable for losses caused by an act of God. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still used today.

In The Sea Witch, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a ship's captain could be held liable for damages caused by his negligence. In an 8-1 decision, the court ruled that he could not. Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that captains should be held responsible for their actions and should not be allowed to escape liability simply because they are employed by someone else. He noted that if captains were given immunity from responsibility then it would encourage them to act recklessly without fear of consequence or accountability. Furthermore, such an exemption would create a dangerous precedent where employers can avoid responsibility for their employees' negligent acts while still profiting from them. He concluded that allowing this kind of behavior would lead to greater harm than good and thus urged the majority opinion to reconsider its ruling on this matter.