In the case of Cooper Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Fritz Kopke, Inc., et al., 1973, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving damages caused to cargo during unloading by stevedores employed by Cooper Stevedoring Company. The ship was chartered by Fritz Kopke, Inc and others who sued for damages in federal court under maritime law after discovering that their goods had been damaged during unloading operations at a Mississippi port. The lower courts held that both parties were equally at fault and divided the damage costs evenly between them (50-50). However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was decided that this equal division of liability did not accurately reflect each party's degree of negligence or responsibility for causing harm as required under maritime law principles known as "comparative negligence". Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded back to district court with instructions to reassess liability based on comparative negligence rather than an automatic 50-50 split.

In the dissenting opinion for Cooper Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Fritz Kopke, Inc., et al., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to allow a shipowner to seek contribution from a stevedore for damages paid out in personal injury claims was inconsistent with the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). He contended that under this act, an employer is immune from further liability once compensation has been paid. The justice believed that allowing additional recovery undermines this principle of limited liability established by Congress and could potentially lead to increased litigation costs and insurance premiums within the shipping industry. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how such decisions might affect labor relations between employers and employees as it creates uncertainty about finality in settlements.