In the case of North Pacific Steamship Company v. Soley (1921), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of North Pacific Steamship Company, reversing a decision by the lower court. The dispute arose when Mr. Soley, an employee of the steamship company, was injured while working on one of their ships and sought compensation for his injuries under Washington state law. However, because he was employed as a seaman and not a land-based worker at the time of his injury, federal maritime law applied to his situation rather than state workers' compensation laws. Under federal maritime law at that time there were no provisions for compensating employees who were injured on duty unless it could be proven that negligence or unseaworthiness caused their injuries - which wasn't applicable in this case since Mr. Soley's injury occurred due to an accident without any fault from either party involved.

The dissenting opinion in the case of North Pacific Steamship Company v. Soley argued that the majority's decision to not hold the steamship company liable for damages was incorrect. The dissent believed that a ship owner should be held responsible for any damage caused by their vessel, regardless of whether they were aware of or could have prevented it. They contended that this principle is well-established in maritime law and serves as an important deterrent against negligence on part of ship owners and operators. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "seaworthiness," arguing that it should encompass all aspects necessary for safe navigation including competent crew members who follow proper procedures during emergencies like fire onboard.