In the case of Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 1970, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and liability for injuries sustained by workers at sea. The plaintiff, Usner, was injured while working aboard a vessel owned by Luckenbach Overseas Corporation when another employee negligently operated machinery causing cargo to fall onto him. He sued under Section 905(b) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), which allows employees to sue their employer if they are injured due to negligence from "vessel" operations. The key issue in this case was how broadly or narrowly "vessel" should be interpreted - whether it includes only physical attributes of ship itself or also encompasses actions taken by people onboard such as crew members operating equipment. The court decided in favor of Luckenbach with Justice Blackmun delivering the opinion that “vessel” as used in LHWCA does not include actions performed by individuals on board but refers solely to physical aspects like its hulls, decks etc., thus limiting scope for claims under section 905(b). Therefore, an injury caused purely through human error did not qualify for compensation under this provision.

In the dissenting opinion for Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., Justice Black disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "negligence" under Section 905(b) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. He argued that this section should not be read to limit a shipowner’s liability only to instances where it had control over and negligently maintained its vessel, but rather should extend to any negligence contributing to an injury on board. This broader interpretation would better align with Congress’ intent in passing this legislation: protecting longshoremen from dangerous conditions at work. The narrow reading adopted by the majority, he contended, unjustly shields shipowners from responsibility for their negligent acts or omissions that cause harm.