The Union Fish Company v. Erickson case in 1918 revolved around a dispute over the ownership and use of fishing traps located in Alaskan waters. The Union Fish Company, a California corporation, claimed exclusive rights to these traps based on leases granted by the U.S government under an act passed by Congress in 1891. However, Erickson and other defendants were using similar fish traps within proximity without any lease or permit from the federal government which led to this litigation. The Supreme Court ruled against Union Fish Co., stating that while they had been given certain privileges under their lease with the U.S Government, it did not grant them exclusive rights to all fish trap locations within Alaska's navigable waters nor prevent others from operating similar devices nearby as long as they didn't interfere with navigation or obstruct access to leased sites.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Union Fish Company v. Erickson argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to properly interpret maritime law. The dissent believed that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by an independent contractor, unless it can be proven that they were negligent in hiring or supervising them. They contended that there was no evidence to suggest such negligence on part of the Union Fish Company, thus making their liability unjustified according to established legal principles. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "seaworthiness," arguing it should only apply if a vessel is unfit for its intended use at sea due to structural defects or lack of necessary equipment - conditions which did not exist in this case.