In the case of Lewis v. Brunswick Corp., 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a manufacturer could be held liable for failing to install a propeller guard on an outboard motor under maritime law. The plaintiff, Patrick Lewis, was injured by the propeller of a boat manufactured by Brunswick Corporation while attempting to save another swimmer in distress and sued for damages alleging that the company's failure to include a safety device constituted negligence and product liability. However, both lower courts ruled in favor of Brunswick Corp., stating that federal regulations did not require such devices and there were no industry standards mandating their use either. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings citing two reasons: firstly, it found no clear consensus among experts about whether or not propeller guards would increase overall safety; secondly, it noted that imposing liability might discourage manufacturers from undertaking voluntary safety improvements due to fear of litigation if those measures proved insufficient. Therefore, this case established important precedent regarding product liability under maritime law - specifically highlighting how regulatory compliance can shield manufacturers from certain lawsuits even when injuries occur as result of their products' design features.

In the dissenting opinion for Lewis v. Brunswick Corp., Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Brunswick Corporation was incorrect. They contended that the case should have been returned to trial because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether or not Brunswick had acted negligently in designing its boat propeller. The dissenters believed that it was reasonable for a jury to conclude that an alternative design could have prevented injury without impairing utility or increasing cost significantly - thus making it feasible under risk-utility analysis used in product liability cases. Furthermore, they criticized the majority’s reliance on federal regulations as evidence of due care taken by Brunswick; arguing these standards are minimum safety requirements and do not necessarily absolve companies from negligence claims if safer alternatives exist.