to support the ill seaman for the rest of his life. The Taylor opinion had a major impact on maintenance and cure law. Beyond its actual holding, the opinion reaffirmed that seamen are considered wards of the court, and that the rules devised for their “benefit and protection” should be construed liberally. Also, it added the term “manifests itself’ to the maintenance and cure lexicon, so that the following rule is often repeated: A shipowner must pay maintenance and cure for any illness or injury which occurred, was aggravat ed, or manifested itself while the seaman was in the ship’s service. Norris, supra, at § 26:21. Since Taylor, the Supreme Court has heard four maintenance and cure cases: Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 818 U.S. 724, 737, 63 S.Ct. 930, 937, 87 L.Ed. 1107 (1943) (<HOLDING>); Farrell v. United States, 336 U.S. 611, 517,
holding that as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within his scope of authority that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision holding that a defendant is aware of the consequences of his plea for sentencing purposes and the plea is voluntary as long as he understands the length of time he might possibly receive recognizing in dicta that where there is a general duty it may be considered as insistent both where the actor is and the subject is  as in the case of the duty of a father to support his children and if the duty hals criminal sanetion it may be enforced in either place holding that a seaman is entitled to maintenance and cure even if he falls ill or is injured while ashore as long as he is subject to the call of duty holding that it is reasonable to allow a parole officer to conduct a search whenever he reasonably believes that is necessary to perform his duties as long as the search is based on specific facts