In the case of Mercilyn Buchanan v. Stanships, Inc., et al., 1987, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a widow could sue for damages under maritime law after her husband died from asbestos exposure while working on ships. The defendants argued that they were not liable because they did not own or operate any vessels at the time of Mr. Buchanan's death and had no control over his work environment when he was exposed to asbestos. They also claimed that Mrs. Buchanan failed to establish causation between their actions and her husband’s death. The court ruled in favor of Stanships, Inc., stating that an employer is only responsible for providing a safe workplace as it pertains to conditions within its control; therefore, since Stanships didn't have direct control over Mr.Buchanan's work environment during his exposure period, they couldn't be held accountable for his subsequent illness and death.

In the dissenting opinion for Mercilyn Buchanan v. Stanships, Inc., it was argued that the majority's decision to apply federal maritime law instead of state law in this case was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were no compelling reasons to displace California’s wrongful death statute with a uniform rule of maritime law. They pointed out that the incident occurred within territorial waters and involved a recreational activity rather than traditional maritime commerce, thus making it more appropriate for state laws to govern such cases. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion about potential legal uncertainties if state laws were applied in similar future cases; arguing instead that applying federal maritime law could lead to inconsistencies due its lack of clear guidelines on damages recoverable under wrongful death actions compared to well-established rules under most states' statutes.