APPENDIX A.—MARITIME LAW

47

The rule is peculiarly applicable in connection with obedience to
orders, though not restricted thereto. As said in Lafourche Packet
Co. v. Henderson (1899), 94 Fed. 871, 36 C. C. A. 519:
A seaman aboard ship is bound to perform such services as may be required
of him in the line of his employment. He can not hold back and refuse prompt
obedience because he may deem the appliances faulty or unsafe. Masters, of
ships exercise large powers, and they may legally compel observance to orders.
A seaman necessarily surrenders much of his personal liberty and freedom of
action, and he is never at liberty, like the landsman, to quit or make much objection
 to the circumstances surrounding the work commanded.
And in Panama R. R. Co. ». Johnson (C. C. A. 1923; 289 Fed.
964), it was held that the Jones Act, incorporating the Federal
liability law as to railway service in the seamen’s act of 1915 by the
amendment of 1920 (see p. 51), did not thereby fix the rule as to the
assumption of risks by seamen, the court saying that, in view of the
obligations devolving upon seamen to carry out orders, they can not
be said to assume the risks, which must be a voluntary act to operate
 as a defense.
However, the rule is not absolute, as appears from a finding that
a fireman on a seagoing vessel assumes as an ordinary risk of his
employment that of an unsecured ladder being thrown down by the
pitching of the boat during a storm (Balleng ». S. S. Co. (1899), 58
N.Y. Supp. 1074, 28 Misc. 238); and that a deck hand on a tugboat
assumes the risk of slipping on the deck and being caught in the towline
 (Direct Nav. Co. ». Anderson (1902), 69 S. W. 174, 29 Tex. Civ.
App. 65).
Maintenance, Cure, and Wages

It is evident from a perusal of the statement in the Osceola case
that there is, under the maritime law, a broad general right to maintenance,
 cure, and wages, but that this right is not enlarged by reason
of op negligence of fellow servants. including the master of the
vessel. |
The question of indemnity, or compensatory damages, arises only
when unseaworthiness or a failure to supply and maintain proper
equipment is proved.
The term of the payment of wages is said to be “at least as long as
the voyage is continued.” No fixed rule seems to exist as to the
exact duration of wage continuance, or of the period during which
maintenance and cure must continue. ‘‘Cure” is not nsec in the
absolute sense, as it may often be impossible, but only as meaning
proper care in view of the circumstances. (The Mars (1907), 149
Fed. 729, 79 C. C. A. 435.) What the standard is “has been the
subject of discussion in several cases; but each depends so largely
upon its own particular facts that the rule laid down in one may
afford little or no aid in determining another.” (The Iroquois (1904),
194 U. S. 240, 24 Sup. Ct. 640.)
, An indemnity was held recoverable where the treatment given an
Injured man was evidently the best the ship afforded, but where it
was held that the master was negligent in failing to put into harbor
at an intermediate port, even at some expense and delay, in order to
secure better surgical treatment. (Ib.) That negligence in the
attempted treatment, or refusal to treat, entails liability is obvious.
And even though the master believes that the injured man was
shamming and refuses him treatment or excuse from duty on that