In the 1955 case Thompson v. Coastal Oil Co., the Supreme Court of the United States addressed a dispute over whether or not an oil company was liable for damages caused by their negligence in maintaining equipment, which resulted in injury to one of its employees. The plaintiff, Mr. Thompson, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder on an oil tanker owned and operated by Coastal Oil Company. He sued for compensation under federal maritime law but his claim was dismissed by lower courts who ruled that since he wasn't engaged in traditional seafaring activities at the time of his accident, he didn't qualify as a 'seaman' and therefore couldn't sue under maritime law. The Supreme Court reversed this decision upon appeal stating that although Mr.Thompson's duties were primarily land-based (he worked as a gauger measuring quantities of oil), they also involved occasional work aboard ships docked at piers along navigable waters - making him eligible to be considered as 'seaman'. Therefore it held that even though some aspects of his job were performed ashore; because part of his employment required him to board vessels where potential hazards existed due to employer negligence, such workers are entitled protection under federal maritime laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Thompson v. Coastal Oil Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a seaman to recover damages under general maritime law, despite having already received compensation under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), resulted in an unfair double recovery. The dissent pointed out that Congress intended LHWCA as an exclusive remedy for injured workers, including seamen. It also highlighted that allowing such double recovery would lead to unjust enrichment of plaintiffs at employers' expense and could potentially disrupt maritime commerce by increasing insurance costs. Furthermore, they contended that this ruling contradicted previous court decisions which held that receipt of benefits under one federal statute precludes additional recovery under another unless explicitly provided by Congress.