The United States Supreme Court case of the U.S. government, owner of the steamships 'Clio,' 'Mooseabee,' 'Fort Logan,' and 'Morganza' versus Carver et al., operating under the firm name Baker, Carver, and Morrell in 1922 revolved around a dispute over damages to cargo during World War I. The U.S. government had chartered these ships to transport goods for war efforts but due to negligence by crew members or other reasons not attributable directly to war risks, some cargoes were damaged or lost at sea. The shipping company claimed that they should be exempt from liability because their contract included a "war risk" clause which stated that they would not be held responsible for any losses caused by dangers associated with wartime conditions such as enemy action or restraints imposed by a belligerent power. However, the court ruled against them stating that this exemption did not cover losses resulting from ordinary maritime perils like negligent handling of cargo even if it occurred during wartime.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Carver et al., argued that the majority's decision to hold the owners of a vessel liable for damages caused by ice, which they had no control over, was unjust and contrary to established maritime law principles. The dissenters contended that it was unreasonable to expect shipowners or their agents to predict unpredictable natural events such as ice formation and movement. They further pointed out that there were no navigational errors or negligent actions on part of the crew members involved in this incident. Therefore, according to them, holding shipowners responsible for an act of nature would set a dangerous precedent and could potentially lead to unfair outcomes in future cases involving similar circumstances.