In the case of Desper, Administratrix v. Starved Rock Ferry Co., the Supreme Court examined a wrongful death claim filed by Mrs. Desper after her husband died in a boating accident on Illinois River operated by Starved Rock Ferry Co. The company argued that they were not liable as Mr. Desper was contributorily negligent and assumed risk when he chose to ride on their boat while intoxicated. However, Mrs.Desper claimed that the ferry operator had been negligent in allowing her husband to board despite his visible intoxication and failed to provide him with a life preserver which could have saved his life when he fell overboard. The court ruled in favor of Starved Rock Ferry Co., stating that there was no federal common law obligation for them to refuse service or provide special care for visibly intoxicated persons beyond what is required under state law, nor did it find any negligence on part of the defendant's employees who were unaware of Mr.Desper's condition until moments before he fell into water.The court also found no evidence proving failure to supply life preservers contributed directly towards Mr.Desper’s death.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Desper v. Starved Rock Ferry Co., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Starved Rock Ferry Co. not liable for damages following a boating accident, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant factual disputes regarding whether or not the company had taken adequate safety precautions and if it was negligent in its operations on the day of the incident. They believed these issues should have been resolved by a jury rather than summarily decided by judges at any level of court proceedings. Furthermore, they disagreed with how negligence law principles were applied in this case and felt that more weight should be given to ensuring public safety over protecting businesses from liability claims.