In the Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique case of 1958, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a shipowner owes a duty of exercising reasonable care towards any lawful visitor on their vessel, regardless if they are classified as an invitee or licensee under common law rules. The plaintiff, Jean Kermarec, was injured while visiting his brother aboard defendant's ship docked in New York Harbor and sued for damages alleging negligence by the company. The District Court found in favor of Kermarec but this decision was reversed by the Second Circuit Court which applied traditional land-based tort principles distinguishing between invitees and licensees to maritime cases. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court it held that such distinctions were irrelevant at sea where conditions were markedly different from those ashore and thus required uniform treatment for all lawful visitors regarding safety standards.

In the dissenting opinion for Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's decision to apply a uniform standard of care to all lawful visitors on board a ship. He argued that this approach oversimplified maritime law and ignored its complexities and nuances. Instead, he proposed that different standards should be applied depending on whether the visitor was an invitee or licensee - terms used in common law torts to distinguish between types of guests based on their purpose for being on someone else's property. Invitees are owed a higher duty of care than licensees because they are invited onto the property for mutual benefit (like customers in a store), whereas licensees enter only for their own convenience or enjoyment (like social guests). In this case, since Kermarec was visiting his friend who worked aboard the ship without any business purpose related to shipping company itself, Justice Frankfurter believed he should have been considered as licensee rather than an invitee and therefore owed less duty by ship owners.