In the 1933 case of Larsen v. Northland Transportation Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Northland Transportation Company, overturning a lower court's decision. The plaintiff, Mr. Larsen, was an employee who had been injured while working on one of the company's vessels and sought compensation under federal maritime law for negligence and unseaworthiness. However, he had signed a contract that included a clause waiving his right to sue for damages if injured on duty due to negligence or unseaworthiness of vessel unless caused by company’s failure to maintain safe appliances and suitable sea-worthy vessels. The Supreme Court held that such contracts were not inherently unjust or unreasonable as long as they did not absolve employers from their obligation to provide safe work environments; thus it didn't violate public policy nor was it against any statutory provision at that time. Therefore, since there wasn’t evidence showing breach of this obligation by employer (Northland), Mr.Larsen couldn't recover damages based on his claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Larsen v. Northland Transportation Co., Justice Stone disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that it was a matter of federal law and thus within their purview. He contended that since Congress had enacted legislation regulating seamen's rights to recover damages for personal injuries, this indicated an intent to provide uniform rules applicable in all courts, both state and federal. Therefore, he believed that any conflict between these laws should be resolved by applying federal law rather than dismissing the case outright due to lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, Justice Stone argued against what he saw as an overly narrow interpretation of maritime law which excluded cases like this one from being heard in federal court simply because they involved incidents occurring on navigable waters within a single state.