In the United States v. Cornell Steamboat Company case of 1924, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving negligence and liability for damages caused by a fire that started on one of Cornell's tugboats. The fire spread to nearby barges owned by Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, causing significant damage. Initially, lower courts held Cornell liable for all damages because they failed to provide adequate firefighting equipment on their boat which could have prevented or minimized the spread of the fire. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was determined that while Cornell was negligent in not having proper firefighting equipment onboard their vessel; this negligence did not directly cause all damage sustained by Lehigh’s property. Therefore, while still found partially responsible due to its initial negligence leading to some destructions (the proximate cause), it wasn't entirely accountable for all losses experienced by Lehigh Valley Railroad Company as there were intervening causes such as wind direction and lack of immediate response from other parties involved in controlling and extinguishing the blaze.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Cornell Steamboat Company case argued that the majority's decision to hold the steamboat company liable for damages caused by a fire on one of its tugboats was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the steamboat company, and thus it should not be held responsible for losses incurred by other parties as a result of this incident. They contended that just because an accident occurred does not automatically imply negligence or fault, especially given how common fires were on such vessels during this time period due to their inherent risks and dangers. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding whether proper safety precautions had been taken prior to the fire outbreak, which further cast doubt over claims of negligent behavior from the steamboat company.