The United States Supreme Court case, UNITED NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY SANDY HOOK PILOTS ASSOCIATION et al. v. HALECKI, ADMINISTRATRIX (1958), revolved around the issue of whether or not a New York law could be applied to an accident that occurred on international waters. The plaintiff's husband was killed while cleaning the hull of a ship in international waters and she sought compensation under New York State's wrongful death statute from his employer - Sandy Hook Pilots Association. The defendant argued that since the incident took place outside U.S territorial waters, it should fall under maritime law which would limit their liability for damages. However, Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of 5-4 majority court ruling against this argument stating that state laws can apply when incidents occur on navigable waters within its borders but cannot extend to accidents occurring beyond three miles off-shore where federal maritime jurisdiction prevails exclusively over state laws. Therefore, Halecki’s claim could not proceed under NY State Law as her husband’s fatal accident happened more than three nautical miles offshore.

In the dissenting opinion for the United States Supreme Court case, UNITED NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY SANDY HOOK PILOTS ASSOCIATION et al. v. HALECKI, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's decision to extend liability under maritime law to situations where a worker is injured on navigable waters due to unsafe working conditions created by his employer. He argued that this expansion of liability was inconsistent with previous court decisions and congressional intent regarding maritime law. Furthermore, he contended that it would create uncertainty in an area of law which requires clear rules due to its impact on commercial activities. He also expressed concern about potential negative economic consequences resulting from increased litigation and insurance costs for businesses operating in navigable waters.