418 SETTLEMENT FOR ACCIDENTS TO AMERICAN SEAMEN

ground, there is still liability. (Morris ». United States (C. C. A.
1924; 3 Fed. (2d) 588.) The compulsion to perform work while the
injured man ‘was entitled to be maintained in rest for cure’ was
held to furnish a basis for a compensatory recovery representing
wages for the period.
Naturally, the term of treatment reasonably required to effect a
cure may extend beyond the term of the contract of employment,
and it has been held that such continuance is a right. (The Bouker,
No. 2 (1917), 241 Fed. 831, 154 C. C. A. 533; Great Lakes S. S. Co. ».
Geiger, C. C. A. 1919; 261 Fed. 275.) But such extension does not
carry with it a right to continuance of wages, and a judgment to the
contrary was reversed by the court of appeals in the Geiger case,
supra, though the judgment for maintenance was held proper.

Unseaworthiness

The term seaworthiness, the lack of which affords a basis for indemnity,
 is defined as “the sufficiency of the vessel in materials,
construction, equipment, officers, men and outfit, for the trade or
service in which it is employed.” (Bouvier: Rawle’s 3d Revision.)
A few cases under this head may be noted by way of illustration. In
one of these (Carlisle Packing Co. ». Sandanger (1922), 259 U. S. 247,
42 Sup. Ct. 475), a seaman undertook to start a fire “according to
the prevailing custom in those waters,” using firewood upon which
he had poured coal oil, as he supposed. In fact, he had used a can
so marked, but it contained gasoline; an explosion occurred and the
man was badly burned. He jumped into the water to extinguish his
flaming clothes, but delayed in an effort to find a life preserver.
None was to be found, and the court ruled that it would have been
a proper instruction to say that the vessel was unseaworthy by reason
of the gasoline found in a can marked “coal oil”’; also that it was
unseaworthy if no life preservers were on board when the boat left
the docks. For both these reasons the injured man “was entitled
fo recover compensatory damages.”
A second aspect of unseaworthiness entailing indemnity was a case
in which, during a storm, an engine cover fell upon a seaman because
of insufficient fastening (The Drumelton (1907), 158 Fed. 454); likewise
 where a skid of known defectiveness was kept in use, causing
a barre] being moved thereon to fall upon and seriously injure a
seaman. (Lafourche Packet Co. ». Henderson (1899), 94 Fed. 871.)
A third phase appeared in a case in which the vessel employed a
mate “with a reputation for ferocity as wide as the seven seas.”
He was physically powerful and so maltreated the seamen under him
that various ones suffered serious and permanent injuries. The boat
was held liable on the assumption of the master’s knowledge of the
assaults, a denial of which would be “simply to trifle with the court.”
Since seaworthiness implies that a boat be properly manned, the
condition was found wanting in this case, with corresponding liability.
 (The Rolph (1923), 293 Fed. 269.)
It will be observed that in none of these cases was there a circumstance
 affecting the staunchness of the vessel or its fitness for the
general purposes of navigation, to which the rule would obviously
apply.
In a fourth case, unseaworthiness was charged where the master
ordered a stick intended for one use to be applied to another use for