In the case of Alaska Steamship Company v. McHugh, 1924, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a seaman's injury sustained while on shore leave could be considered as having occurred 'in the course of his employment' and thus make him eligible for compensation under maritime law. The plaintiff, McHugh, had been injured in an accident that took place during his time off from work but within the period of his engagement. He argued that he should receive damages because he was required to stay aboard or near the ship due to its remote location in Alaska. However, Alaska Steamship Company contended that since McHugh wasn't working at the time of injury it shouldn't be liable for compensation. The court ruled in favor of McHugh stating that despite being on leave when injured; he remained subject to call and hence still effectively serving his employer’s interests making him entitled to compensation under maritime law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Alaska Steamship Company v. McHugh argued that the majority's decision to hold the steamship company liable for injuries sustained by a longshoreman while unloading cargo was incorrect. The dissent contended that under maritime law, it is not customary or reasonable to expect ship owners to ensure absolute safety on their vessels and they should only be held accountable for providing reasonably safe conditions. They further asserted that accidents such as these are an inherent risk in this line of work and cannot always be prevented even with utmost care taken by shipowners. Therefore, according to them, liability should not rest solely on the shoulders of ship owners but rather shared among all parties involved including employers who hire workers knowing well about potential risks associated with such jobs.