In the 1907 U.S. Supreme Court case, The Troy, a dispute arose over damages caused by a collision between two vessels: The Troy and The J.P. Donaldson in Lake Erie's navigable waters. Both ships were moving under steam power during dense fog conditions when they collided due to their inability to see each other clearly. Initially, the District Court held that both vessels were at fault for not taking adequate precautions as required by law during such weather conditions; therefore, it divided the damage costs equally between them. However, upon appeal from The Troy’s owners who argued that they had taken all necessary precautions while it was The J.P Donaldson which failed to do so adequately - thus causing the accident - ,the Circuit Court reversed this decision stating that only one vessel (The J.P Donaldson) was responsible for negligence leading up to the collision. This led to an appeal in front of Supreme court where after reviewing evidence and arguments presented before lower courts,it upheld Circuit court's verdict concluding that indeed only one ship (The JP Donaldson) was at fault for failing its duty of care on waterways thereby making it solely liable for all damages resulting from said collision.

In the dissenting opinion for The Troy case in 1907, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a ship liable for damages caused by its cargo of explosives was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the ship owners should not be held responsible because they were unaware of the dangerous nature of their cargo. They contended that liability should only apply when there is knowledge or reasonable cause to believe in such danger. This perspective emphasized on intent and awareness as crucial factors in determining culpability, arguing against strict liability regardless of knowledge or intent.