The Supreme Court reviewed a case where a seaman died due to a navigation rule violation on a tugboat. The lower court denied liability, but the petitioner argued that the violation made the flotilla unseaworthy, creating liability without fault. The Court rejected the lower courts' tort doctrine that limits liability for violation of a statutory duty only to injuries that the statute was designed to prevent in FELA cases. The Court's decision to hold employers liable for injuries resulting from violations of the Safety Appliance and Boiler Inspection Acts without proof of negligence was based on judicially developed principles that align with Congress's general purpose of providing remedies for railroad employee injuries. The central issue in the current case is whether the principles established in previous FELA cases apply to violations of the navigation statute or are limited to cases involving the Safety Appliance and Boiler Inspection Acts. The case at hand involves a defective air-brake that caused an employee's death, and the railroad is responsible for the death as all circumstances were related to each other in time and space.

The case involves a wrongful death claim based on unseaworthiness, but the dissenting opinion agrees that the claim cannot be based on it. The respondent's liability is solely dependent on the Jones Act and principles of negligence. The District Court found that the respondent violated a Coast Guard regulation but was not negligent in carrying the kerosene signal lantern that caused the accident. The court held that this violation did not give rise to liability in negligence because the purpose of the statute authorizing the regulation was to prevent collisions, not the type of accident that occurred. The Court imposed absolute liability on the respondent for injuries resulting from the violation of the Coast Guard regulation, without requiring proof of negligence. However, the author disagrees with the Court's conclusion, arguing that liability should only result from negligence, which is the basis of the Jones Act. The Court clarified that the violation of an absolute duty is simply a violation of the regulatory Acts, and that the term "negligence per se" is confusing. The court held that the FELA does not exempt "negligence" from the limiting doctrine of Gorris v. Scott. The court relied on previous cases that established a theory of liability based on violations of safety regulations, allowing for a "non-negligence" action when a Coast Guard regulation was violated under the Jones Act. However, the court's opinion failed to demonstrate that the statute authorizing the Coast Guard regulation was intended to establish absolute liability or that the Jones Act was intended to enforce such liability. The Safety Appliance and Boiler Inspection Acts are considered amendments to the FELA, and they facilitate employee recovery. Congress has directed liability under the FELA for injuries resulting from negligence or violation of these Acts. Therefore, no general rule of absolute liability without regard to negligence for injuries resulting from violation of any statute can be said to emerge from these decisions.