In the case of Senko v. LaCrosse Dredging Corp., 1956, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a dredge boat operator's injury sustained while working on navigable waters fell under state workers' compensation laws or federal maritime law. The plaintiff, John Senko, had been injured while operating a clamshell bucket on a dredge in Illinois and sought damages from his employer, LaCrosse Dredging Corporation. The court ruled that since the accident occurred over navigable waters and involved traditional maritime activity (dredging), it fell within admiralty jurisdiction rather than state jurisdiction. Therefore, Mr. Senko could not claim benefits under Illinois’ Workers Compensation Act but instead should seek remedies through federal maritime law.

In the dissenting opinion for Senko v. LaCrosse Dredging Corp., it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a dredge owner liable for injuries sustained by an employee of another company, who was working on a barge owned by his employer but attached to and serviced by the dredge, expanded liability beyond reasonable limits. The dissent maintained that this extension of liability could lead to unfair results in future cases. It emphasized that while safety is paramount in maritime operations, responsibility should not be extended indiscriminately without considering specific contractual relationships and obligations between parties involved. Furthermore, it contended that such broad interpretation of duty under maritime law would create uncertainty and unpredictability in commercial dealings at sea.