In the Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc. case of 1957, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Luckenbach Steamship Company. The plaintiff, Palermo, was a longshoreman who sustained injuries while unloading cargo from one of the defendant's ships and sought compensation for his damages under maritime law. However, he had already received benefits under New York State's workers' compensation laws which were more generous than federal maritime law would have provided him with respect to medical expenses and lost wages during disability period but less generous concerning permanent partial disability payments. The issue before the court was whether or not state worker’s compensation laws could be applied to cases involving maritime jurisdiction when they provide greater immediate benefits than federal law but lesser overall recovery potential due to their failure to recognize certain types of losses recognized by federal law. The Supreme Court held that there is no preemption by Federal Maritime Law over state workmen’s compensation statutes even if those statutes do not fully compensate all types of loss recognized in general admiralty tort principles as long as it does not discriminate against maritime employment specifically.

In the dissenting opinion for Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc., Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case back to lower courts. He argued that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial which proved negligence on part of Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc. The plaintiff, a longshoreman, was injured while unloading cargo from one of their ships due to an unsafe condition created by improper stowage of cargo - a responsibility that falls under the shipowner's duty according to maritime law. Justice Brennan believed this constituted as "unseaworthiness" and thus held them liable for damages caused by their negligence. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s interpretation of “unseaworthiness” as too narrow and inconsistent with previous court decisions in similar cases where it had been interpreted more broadly.