In the case of Rodriguez v. Compass Shipping Co., Ltd., et al, 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Compass Shipping and other defendants who were accused by an injured seaman under a maritime law known as The Jones Act. The plaintiff, Rodriguez, was a Spanish-speaking Puerto Rican who had been injured while working on one of the defendant's ships and claimed that he did not understand safety instructions because they were given in English only. He sued for damages alleging negligence and unseaworthiness of vessel which led to his injury. The court held that there was no evidence showing that language barrier contributed to unsafe conditions leading to his accident or any proof indicating ship’s unseaworthiness causing harm to him; hence it could not be considered as negligence from employer’s side under The Jones Act provisions. Furthermore, it stated that employers are not required by this act or general maritime law to provide safety instructions in languages understood by foreign crew members.

In the dissenting opinion for Rodriguez v. Compass Shipping Co., Ltd., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision to limit damages under general maritime law was inconsistent with previous court decisions and Congressional intent. They contended that Congress had not intended to cap recovery at $500 per package in all circumstances when it passed the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). Instead, they believed COGSA should only apply during "tackle-to-tackle" periods - while cargo is on board a ship - rather than throughout an entire period of responsibility as determined by a bill of lading or similar contract. The dissent also criticized the majority for failing to consider international conventions which allow higher liability limits. In their view, this ruling could harm U.S.'s standing in international commerce as foreign shippers might avoid American ports due to lower potential recoveries if goods are damaged.