The South Coast S.S. Co v. Rudbach case in 1919 revolved around a dispute over damages incurred during the transportation of goods by sea. The plaintiff, Rudbach, had contracted with the defendant, South Coast Steamship Company (S.S.Co), to transport a cargo of lumber from one port to another. However, due to alleged negligence on part of the steamship company's employees resulting in delay and damage to some parts of the cargo, Rudbach sought compensation for his losses. The Supreme Court ruled that under maritime law and according to their contract agreement known as 'bill of lading', which limited liability for any loss or damage not occurring through "neglect or fault" on part of S.S.Co., they were not liable for all damages claimed by Rudbach since he failed to prove neglect or fault beyond reasonable doubt. However, it was found that there was indeed negligence regarding certain portions where water damaged some lumber because hatches were left open during rainstorms - an act considered avoidable and negligent under normal circumstances. Therefore, while dismissing most claims made by Rudbach against them citing lack of evidence proving neglect/fault causing those specific damages; S.S.Co was held responsible only for this particular instance.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of South Coast S.S. Co. v. Rudbach, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to hold South Coast Steamship Company liable for damages due to negligence in maintaining their vessel which resulted in an explosion and subsequent injury of a crew member, Mr. Rudbach. He argued that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove beyond reasonable doubt that negligence on part of the company directly caused the accident and resulting injuries sustained by Mr.Rudbach . The justice believed it was possible that other factors could have contributed or even been solely responsible for causing such an unfortunate incident; hence he felt it unjustified to place all blame on one party without concrete proof linking them directly as cause of harm suffered by plaintiff.