The U.S. Supreme Court case Calmar Steamship Corp. v. Taylor in 1937 revolved around the issue of seamen's rights to maintenance and cure, a maritime law doctrine that obligates a shipowner to provide medical care free of charge to a seaman injured in the service of the ship, until they have reached maximum medical recovery. The plaintiff, Mr. Taylor was injured while working on one of Calmar Steamship Corporation’s vessels and sought compensation for his injuries as well as living expenses during his period of recuperation (maintenance) under this doctrine. The court ruled unanimously in favor of Mr.Taylor stating that he was entitled to receive both maintenance and cure regardless if negligence or unseaworthiness were proven by him against his employer i.e., even if an injury occurred without any fault from the employer side, it is still their responsibility to cover these costs till full recovery. This decision reinforced legal protections for sailors who are often at risk due to hazardous conditions at sea; ensuring they would not be left destitute after suffering work-related injuries.

In the dissenting opinion for Calmar Steamship Corp. v. Taylor, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of maritime law and an unwarranted extension of liability for ship owners. He contended that it was unreasonable to hold ship owners liable for injuries sustained by seamen during shore leave, as they had no control over their actions or environment at such times. Furthermore, he believed this ruling would lead to excessive litigation and financial burdens on shipping companies which could negatively impact commerce and trade. Thus, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "maintenance and cure," asserting it should only cover illnesses or injuries incurred while in service to the ship.