In the case of Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire et al., 1985, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Offshore Logistics, a helicopter company that transported workers to and from offshore drilling platforms. The dispute arose when two employees died in a crash while being transported by one of the company's helicopters into international waters. The widows of these employees sued for damages under both state law and federal maritime law but were awarded only limited damages under federal law due to an old statute known as Limitation Act which limits liability for vessel owners. The central issue was whether this limitation applied since it occurred over international waters rather than within any particular state jurisdiction or on land where different laws would apply. In its decision, the court held that because the accident took place over navigable waters (even though they were international), it fell within admiralty jurisdiction and thus federal maritime law - including limitations on liability - applied. This ruling effectively reduced potential compensation available to victims' families in such cases and reinforced protections for companies operating vessels at sea.

In the dissenting opinion for Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of maritime law and its application to this case. He argued that the Death on High Seas Act (DOHSA) should not be applied exclusively in cases involving wrongful death occurring more than a marine league from shore; instead, he believed state law remedies should also apply concurrently where appropriate. In his view, DOHSA was intended as a floor rather than a ceiling for recovery in such cases - it provided minimum standards but did not preclude additional compensation under other laws or doctrines like general maritime law or state tort principles. Furthermore, he contended that applying only federal law could lead to inadequate compensation for victims' families due to inflation since DOHSA's enactment and its failure to account fully for non-pecuniary damages like loss of companionship or mental anguish.