In the case of Van Der Weyde v. Ocean Transport Co., Ltd et al., 1935, the plaintiff, a Dutch citizen and seaman aboard a British ship owned by Ocean Transport Company, was injured while on duty in New York harbor. He sued for damages under U.S. law but his claim was dismissed by lower courts because he had signed an employment contract in England agreeing to resolve any disputes through arbitration there. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings stating that American courts did not have jurisdiction over this matter due to principles of international comity and respect for foreign laws and contracts. It also noted that enforcing such claims could potentially disrupt international maritime commerce if every country applied its own laws to incidents occurring within their waters involving foreign ships and crew members.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Van Der Weyde v. Ocean Transport Co., Ltd et al., 1935, argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim was incorrect. The dissenting justice believed that there were sufficient grounds for a lawsuit because it could be reasonably inferred from evidence presented that negligence on part of defendant company led to injuries suffered by Mr. Van Der Weyde while working aboard their ship as an engineer officer. They contended that under maritime law, employers have a duty to provide safe work environments and failure to do so can result in liability for any resulting harm or injury caused due to this neglect. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "unseaworthiness" and felt it should extend beyond physical conditions of vessel itself but also include negligent actions or omissions by crew members which create unsafe conditions onboard ships.