In Sentilles v. Inter-Caribbean Shipping Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a seaman who was injured while working on a ship owned by the defendant company, affirming that it is within the jury's purview to decide if negligence caused an injury. The plaintiff, Sentilles, had been ordered to work in rough seas and sustained injuries when he was thrown about due to violent movement of his ship during a storm. He claimed that his subsequent tuberculosis was either caused or aggravated by this incident and sued for damages under maritime law which holds employers liable for failing to provide safe workplaces for their employees. The lower courts initially dismissed his claim stating there wasn't enough evidence linking his accident with tuberculosis but upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that causation is fundamentally an issue decided by juries based on common knowledge and experience rather than requiring specific expert testimony as proof. Therefore, even though medical experts could not definitively say whether Sentilles' accident led directly to him contracting TB or worsening its effects; it was reasonable enough for jurors - given their collective wisdom -  to make such determinations themselves.

In the dissenting opinion for Sentilles v. Inter-Caribbean Shipping Corp., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to uphold a jury verdict in favor of Sentilles was incorrect because it relied on speculative evidence. He contended that there was no concrete proof linking Sentilles' injuries to his fall aboard the ship, as required by maritime law. Instead, he believed that the plaintiff’s medical history and pre-existing conditions could have caused or contributed significantly to his health issues following the incident. Therefore, according to him, allowing such a verdict based on conjecture rather than solid evidence undermined legal standards and set a dangerous precedent for future cases.