In the 1903 U.S. Supreme Court case, The Southwark, a dispute arose over damages caused by a collision between two ships - the British ship "The Southwark" and an American vessel called "The City of New York." The incident occurred in dense fog off Sandy Hook near New York Harbor. Both vessels were found to be at fault for not following appropriate precautions during such weather conditions as required by maritime law. However, due to the comparative negligence rule applied in admiralty cases, each party was held responsible for their share of damage based on their degree of fault. This ruling established that both parties involved in a marine accident could be held liable if they did not take adequate precautions even if one party's actions primarily caused the accident.

In the dissenting opinion for The Southwark case, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a ship liable for damages caused by cargo shifting during a storm was incorrect. This perspective emphasized that such an event is considered "perils of the sea," which are typically unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, they should not be grounds for holding a carrier responsible unless there is evidence of negligence or unseaworthiness on their part. In this particular case, no such proof existed; hence, liability should not have been assigned to the ship owners. Furthermore, it was contended that if carriers were held accountable in these situations without clear evidence of fault on their part, it could set a dangerous precedent potentially leading to unjust outcomes in future cases.