In the United States v. Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Co., 1945, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a private company could be held liable for damages to government property during wartime operations. The case arose when two vessels owned by the U.S. Government were damaged in collisions with ships operated by private companies (Detroit and Cleveland Navigation Company and others). The government sought compensation for these damages under maritime law but faced opposition from the defendants who argued that they should be exempted due to war conditions at that time which made navigation more hazardous than usual. The court ruled in favor of the U.S. Government stating that even though there may have been increased risks due to wartime conditions, it did not absolve ship operators from their duty of care while navigating waters where other vessels are present. They further stated that any exemption would undermine public interest as it would discourage careful navigation and potentially lead to more accidents occurring on waterways used by both military and civilian vessels alike.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Co., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of maritime law and could potentially harm innocent parties. He contended that, under international maritime law, a ship is considered an extension of its country's territory and thus should be immune from seizure by another nation in times of peace unless it poses an immediate threat or has committed some offense against local laws. In this case, he believed there was no evidence to suggest either condition had been met when U.S authorities seized two Canadian vessels during World War II on suspicion they were aiding enemy nations. Furthermore, he expressed concern that such actions might encourage other countries to seize American ships without cause or due process in retaliation.