Loverich v. Warner Co.

With diffidence1 the writer of this dissent suggests that his learned brethren misjudge the scope of the decision of the Supreme Court in the leading case of Calmar S. S. Corp. v. Taylor2 (coming up from our own Circuit3). Such a misconception, if it is one, has been expected by at least one text writer. In discussing the Calmar opinion he says: “Thus the seaman is to keep biting at his cherry. But for how long remains as hazy as before. The case does indicate, however, that an incurable disease arising out of the employment — that is, an occupational disease or a disease resulting from the…