46 SETTLEMENT FOR ACCIDENTS TO AMERICAN SEAMEN

ging) which, although now modified by statute, led the Supreme
Court of the United States so recently as 1897 to say of seamen (one
justice dissenting): ‘It can not be open to doubt that the provision
[of the United States Constitution] against involuntary servitude
was never intended to apply to their contracts.” (Robertson o.
Baldwin (1897), 165 U. S. 275, 17 Sup. Ct. 326.)
Another element in the situation is the persistence from very early
times of rules and customs that grew up under conditions and rested
on theories that long since lost influence in every other field of employment,
 but whose dominance in this field has only comparatively
recently been modified and is yet far from complete abrogation.

Summary of Admiralty Rights

Passing by the incidents of wage payments, penalties for desertion,
the methods of securing employment, the use of the log book, ete.,
all of which are distinctly maritime in form and effect, the rights of
recovery for personal injury to seamen may be concisely stated in
the words of the Supreme Court:
1. That the vessel and her owners are liable, in case a seaman falls sick, or is
wounded, in the service of the ship, to the extent of his maintenance and cure,
and to his wages, at least so long as the voyage is continued.
2, That the vessel and her owner are, both by English and American law,
liable to an indemnity for injuries received by seamen in consequence of the
unseaworthiness of the ship, or a failure to supply and keep in order the proper
appliances appurtenant to the ship.
3. That all the members of the crew, except perhaps the master, are as between
 themselves, fellow servants, and hence seamen can not recover for injuries
sustained through the negligence of another member of the crew beyond the
expense of their maintenance and cure.
4. That the seaman is not allowed to recover an indemnity for the negligence
of the master, or any member of the crew, but is entitled to maintenance and
cure, whether the injuries were received by negligence or accident. (The Osceola
(1903), 189 U. S. 158, 175, 23 Sup. Ct. 483.)
No right to recover in fatal cases existed under the maritime law.
(The Harrisburg (1886), 119 U. S. 199, 7 Sup. Ct. 140.)
Emplovers’ Defenses

While the defense of fellow service is seen to be very broad, that
of contributory negligence is modified in admiralty so as to permit a
recovery in the measure of the excess of the employer's negligence
over that of the injured employee. This defense may even be
barred for the same reasons that operate in connection with that of
assumption of risks, as set forth below. (Eldridge ». Atlas S. S. Co.
(1892), 134 N. Y. 187, 32 N. E. 66.) ,
As to the third defense so frequently referred to in common-law
activities—that of the assumption of risks—it has been broadly said
to be “a long and well-established principle that a seaman does not
assume the risks of his employment. The rule is grounded in sound
public policy.” (Dopico ». New York Marine Co. (1926), 217 N. Y.
Supp. 295.) “If vessel owners sail their ships with improper appli
ances, they must assume the risks; not the seamen.” (Ib.) And this
is true even though the seaman knew of the imperfection when sailing.
 (Cricket S. S. Co. ». Parry (C. C. A. 1920), 263 Fed. 523.)