In the Vaughan v. Atkinson case of 1961, a seaman named Vaughan sued his employer for maintenance and cure after he was diagnosed with tuberculosis following an injury at sea. Maintenance and cure is a maritime law principle that requires a shipowner to provide food, lodging, and medical services to a seaman injured while serving the ship until they have reached maximum medical improvement. The lower courts denied him these benefits on grounds that his illness was not caused by or during his service on the ship. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court it was found that Atkinson had willfully refused to pay for Vaughan's care despite knowing about his condition which worsened due to lack of proper treatment. Therefore, in addition to granting him maintenance and cure rights under general maritime law principles, the court also awarded attorney fees as damages because of this willful refusal by Atkinson - marking one of few exceptions where such costs can be recovered in federal common law cases.

In the dissenting opinion for Vaughan v. Atkinson, Justice Whittaker disagreed with the majority's decision to award damages to a seaman who was not provided maintenance and cure by his employer after falling ill on board. He argued that there was no evidence of willful or callous disregard by the shipowner towards their duty of care, which he believed should be necessary for punitive damages to be awarded in such cases. The shipowner had relied upon medical advice suggesting that further treatment would not improve Vaughan's condition - an action which Justice Whittaker did not view as negligent or malicious. Furthermore, he contended that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent where employers may face excessive penalties even when they have acted in good faith based on professional advice.