underlying the obligation, so cogently stated by Justice Story in Harden v. Gordon, ... and the liberality with which admiralty courts have traditionally interpreted rules devised for the benefit and protection of seamen who are its wards ... call for some extension of the duty beyond the term of service. Id. at 529, 58 S.Ct. at 654. The Court determined, however, that, in cases where the seaman suffers from a disease “which manifests itself during his employment, but is not caused by it,” the shipowner’s duty is to expend such funds as are necessary only to put the seaman in such condition “as reasonably may be expected to result from nursing, care, and medical treatment.” Id. at 530, 58 S.Ct. at 654 (emphasis added). Thus, the shipowner is not r S.Ct. 707, 710, 93 L.Ed. 850 (1949) (<HOLDING>); Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 533, 82
holding that a habeas petitioner was not entitled to relief from a state courts determination that he had forfeited his right to counsel by physically assaulting his attorney and threatening to put a contract on his attorneys life recognizing in context of fraudulent nondisclosure cases that a defendant may reasonably expect the plaintiff to make his own investigation draw his own conclusions and protect himself holding that in an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages not only for his unlawful arrest and imprisonment but also for expenses of his defense holding that appellant forfeited his right to counsel through his pattern of serious misconduct abuse threats and utter failure to collaborate in his own defense holding that a seaman who overstays his shore leave and injures himself through his own negligence is entitled to a reasonable period of maintenance and cure but not to maintenance and cure for life