In the case of De Zon v. American President Lines, Ltd., 1942, a Dutch sailor was injured while working on an American ship during World War II and sought compensation under U.S law. The Supreme Court ruled that he could not claim damages from his employer because he had signed a contract in Holland which stated that any disputes would be settled according to Dutch law. Despite being employed by an American company and injured on an American vessel, the court held that the contractual agreement took precedence over location or nationality of the employing entity. This ruling established precedent for jurisdictional matters concerning maritime labor contracts and emphasized respect for international comity in such cases.

In the dissenting opinion for DE ZON v. AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., it was argued that the majority's decision to hold American President Lines liable for damages suffered by De Zon due to a fall on their ship was incorrect. The dissent emphasized that there were no specific regulations or standards in place at the time of De Zon's accident which required ships to have handrails installed where he fell. Furthermore, they pointed out that even if such standards had existed, it would not necessarily mean that failing to meet them automatically constitutes negligence on part of the ship owners. They also disagreed with the majority’s view about foreseeability of harm and stated that just because an injury occurred does not make it foreseeable or preventable through reasonable care.