In the case of Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn et al., 1953, the U.S Supreme Court held that a maritime worker who was injured on a ship due to negligence could sue for damages under both general maritime law and state tort law. The plaintiff, Mr. Hawn, was an experienced carpenter hired by third-party contractors to repair a ship owned by Pope & Talbot Inc., during which he sustained injuries due to unsafe conditions on board the vessel. He sued Pope & Talbot for negligence and unseaworthiness under Pennsylvania's tort laws as well as federal maritime laws. The court ruled in favor of Hawn stating that his status did not limit him from seeking relief under both jurisdictions concurrently because he wasn't considered a crew member but rather an invitee onto the vessel with whom the owner owed duty of care according to common law principles applicable at land or sea alike. This decision established important precedent regarding liability in cases involving non-seamen working aboard vessels and affirmed their rights to seek compensation for injuries suffered while performing duties onboard ships.

In the dissenting opinion for Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn et al., Justice Reed argued that the plaintiff should not be allowed to recover damages under both maritime and common law as it constituted double recovery. He contended that if a seaman is injured due to unseaworthiness of a vessel or negligence on part of its crew, he has right to maintenance and cure but cannot claim additional compensation unless there's proof of negligence by his employer or ship owner. In this case, since the plaintiff was an independent contractor rather than a member of the ship’s crew, he did not qualify for such benefits under maritime law according to Justice Reed's interpretation. Furthermore, he believed that allowing him these rights would disrupt established legal principles governing relationships between ships' owners and those who work aboard their vessels in non-seafaring capacities.