The Pacific Steamship Company v. Peterson case in 1928 revolved around a dispute over the liability of an employer for injuries sustained by an employee while on duty. The plaintiff, Mr. Peterson, was injured when he slipped on a piece of ice while working aboard one of the defendant's steamships and sought compensation under the Jones Act which provides seamen with remedies for personal injury caused by their employers' negligence. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Peterson, stating that it is not necessary to prove that his employer had actual or constructive notice about the dangerous condition (the icy deck). Instead, it held that if such conditions were allowed to exist without any preventative measures taken by those responsible for maintaining safety onboard ships then they could be deemed negligent under maritime law.

In the dissenting opinion for Pacific Steamship Company v. Peterson, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of maritime law. He contended that under maritime law, a shipowner is not liable for injuries to seamen caused by fellow crew members' negligence unless it can be proven that the owner failed in their duty to provide a seaworthy vessel or competent crew. In this case, he believed there was no evidence showing such failure on part of the shipowner. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that an employer should be held responsible for employees' negligent acts during employment regardless of whether they were acting within their authority or not - a principle known as respondeat superior - arguing it had never been applied in cases involving seamen before and shouldn't have been applied here either. Thus, Justice Stone concluded that holding employers accountable without proof of fault would lead to unjust results and undermine established legal principles.