In the case of Amell et al. v. United States, 1965, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a federal statute that allowed for compensation to be paid to longshoremen who were injured while working on navigable waters also applied when those injuries occurred on an adjoining pier. The plaintiffs in this case were two longshoremen who had been injured while loading and unloading ships at a Boston pier and sought compensation under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). However, their claims were denied by lower courts which held that since they weren't actually on navigable waters at the time of their accidents, they didn't qualify for benefits under LHWCA. The Supreme Court disagreed with these rulings and reversed them in favor of Amell et al., stating that Congress intended for LHWCA to cover all maritime employees regardless if they are working directly over water or not as long as their work is related to navigation or commerce over navigable waters. This decision expanded protection rights for maritime workers across America.

In the dissenting opinion for Amell et al. v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny compensation to seamen who were injured while performing duties related to their employment but not on board a vessel was unjust and inconsistent with previous rulings of maritime law. The dissent emphasized that under general maritime law, an employer has a duty to provide its employees with a safe place in which they can perform their work duties; this obligation extends beyond just providing safety onboard ships or vessels. Therefore, if an employee is injured while carrying out tasks associated with his job - even if he is not physically present on the ship at the time - then he should be entitled to receive damages from his employer for any injuries sustained as per general principles of liability under maritime law.