In the case of AKTIESELSKABET CUZCO v. THE SUCARSECO et al., 1934, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over maritime law and salvage rights. The Sucarseco, a ship owned by Aktieselskabet Cuzco, ran aground off the coast of New Jersey in 1926. A group of salvors rescued the vessel but claimed they were not adequately compensated for their efforts and filed suit against Aktieselskabet Cuzco to claim additional payment. The lower courts ruled in favor of the salvors based on an old maritime law principle that allowed rescuers to claim up to half of a saved vessel's value if it was deemed "in peril". However, upon appeal by Aktieselskabet Cuzco, this decision was overturned by Justice Cardozo who argued that modern advancements in technology had reduced risks involved in such rescue operations thereby reducing potential rewards as well. Justice Cardozo stated that while risk is still relevant when determining compensation for salvage services rendered under maritime law; however due consideration must also be given to factors like skill and effort expended during rescue operations. He concluded that since there wasn't any imminent danger or high level risk involved during Sucarseco’s rescue operation hence its owners should not have been required to pay half its value as reward.

In the dissenting opinion for AKTIESELSKABET CUZCO v. THE SUCARSECO et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held a ship owner liable for damages caused by an explosion on its vessel, was incorrect. He contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the ship owner and thus it should not be held responsible for unforeseeable accidents. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of maritime law and believed it unfairly penalized innocent parties without clear proof of fault or negligence. In his view, this could potentially discourage commercial shipping activities due to fear of unwarranted liability claims.