In the 1900 case of Huus v. New York and Porto Rico Steamship Company, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the steamship company, dismissing a claim by Mr. Huus for damages after his son drowned during their voyage from Puerto Rico to New York City. The court held that under maritime law, ship owners are not liable for injuries or deaths caused by "perils of the sea," which include accidents like drowning unless there is proof of negligence on part of the ship owner or crew members. The plaintiff argued that as per Section 4283 Rev Stat., it was mandatory for life-preservers to be provided on board and failure to do so constituted negligence leading to liability towards passengers' safety. However, this statute was found applicable only within domestic waters (between ports in United States) and did not extend its jurisdiction over voyages between foreign ports (Puerto Rico being considered foreign at that time). Therefore, since no specific act of negligence could be proven against them beyond non-compliance with an inapplicable statute; they were absolved from responsibility.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Huus v. New York and Porto Rico Steamship Company disagreed with the majority's interpretation of maritime law, arguing that it was not applicable to this particular situation. The dissent argued that the plaintiff should have been allowed to recover damages for his personal injuries under general maritime law, rather than being limited by a statute which only applied to damage or loss of goods. They contended that there was no legal precedent or statutory basis for limiting recovery in such cases solely to pecuniary losses related directly to cargo damage. Furthermore, they believed that applying this limitation unfairly penalized individuals who suffered personal injury due to negligence on part of ship owners or operators while favoring those whose property was damaged under similar circumstances.