In the case of Vancouver Steamship Co., Ltd. v. Rice, Administratrix (1932), the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs. Rice, who had filed a lawsuit against Vancouver Steamship Company for negligence after her husband died while working on one of their ships. The court held that under maritime law and the Jones Act - which provides seamen with certain protections not covered by regular workers' compensation laws - an employer is liable if they fail to provide a safe workplace resulting in injury or death to an employee, regardless of whether it was foreseeable or not. This ruling set a precedent for future cases involving worker safety at sea.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Vancouver Steamship Co., Ltd. v. Rice, 1932, argued that the majority's decision to hold a foreign corporation liable for damages under Washington state law was incorrect and overstepped federal jurisdictional boundaries. The dissent contended that as per international maritime law principles, liability should be limited to the value of the vessel involved in an accident or incident at sea - not extended to include corporate assets beyond this scope. They believed it was inappropriate for a U.S state court to impose its own rules on an international entity operating outside its borders when there were established global norms governing such matters. This view held that by doing so, they risked creating legal uncertainty and potential conflict with other jurisdictions around the world.