In the case of Halcyon Lines et al. v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp., 1951, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a shipowner could seek contribution from another party for damages paid to an injured worker under the Jones Act. The plaintiff, Halcyon Lines, had settled a claim with an injured employee and then sought to recover half of that settlement from Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corporation who they claimed were partially responsible for the accident. However, in its decision, the court held that there is no right to contribution between joint tortfeasors (parties jointly liable for a wrongful act) in cases arising under federal maritime law or under the Jones Act unless provided by statute or agreement among parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Halcyon Lines et al. v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp., Justice Jackson disagreed with the majority's decision to not hold a third-party tortfeasor liable for contribution in cases of joint negligence under maritime law. He argued that this ruling would create an imbalance, as it allows one party to escape liability while placing full responsibility on another party, even if both were equally at fault. He also expressed concern about how this could potentially affect future litigation and settlements, suggesting that parties may be discouraged from settling out of court due to fear of bearing all costs alone if found partially negligent later on. Furthermore, he criticized the Court’s reliance on Congress’ silence regarding contribution in maritime law as justification for their decision; instead advocating that courts should interpret laws based on principles of justice and fairness rather than legislative omission or ambiguity.