Aside from the fact that lead poisoning in this case was really preventable; aside from the fact that several enlightened nations have absolutely prohibited the use of poisonous lead paints for the interior of their war ships, and aside from the fact that there was no one to warn Schroeder of the dangerous nature of his occupation, there is one big final reason why this decision of Uncle Sam's Attorney was even more unfortunate than it was necessary. The financial cost of this unnecessary case of acute lead poisoning, in addition to the personal suffering, fell upon poor Schroeder. Most men will agree that such financial losses should fall upon the employer. In this case the employer was the nation, which means all of us, you and me.
We owe Schroeder something more than an apology. While the federal government is publishing excellent reports on lead poisoning in the factories of private employers and is translating and distributing in fat volumes the workmen's compensation laws of European countries, can the United States afford to do less than make provision for reasonably safe work places in the government service? And can this country afford to ignore the good example of these European laws which provide compensation for such victims of occupational diseases?
A few months after the unfortunate Schroeder case a man named Hill was employed at placing floor plates in the engine room of the war ship St. Louis in the Puget Sound Navy Yard. Meantime, red and white lead paint was being applied in the bilges of the vessel.
"As a result of this exposure to lead fumes, a sufficient amount of lead was taken into claimant's system to produce 'toxic amblyopia, both eyes,'"
which means
"disease of vision from imperfect sensation of the retina, without organic lesion of the eye."
This disease incapacitated Hill on the thirteenth day after his first exposure to the poison. The exposure lasted only seven days. Said the solicitor:
"It is accordingly possible to refer the claimant's injury to an event capable of being fixed in point of time. In the second place, the injury to the claimant's eyes was neither reasonably to be expected, nor the natural or inevitable consequence of the work he personally was engaged upon. The injury must therefore be ascribed to accident. The claimant's particular work had nothing to do with the painting operations going on about him. His work as a ship fitter related to the laying of places in the boiler room; the painting was being done by others."
And this claim was approved.
But if, instead of Hill, one of the painters had been poisoned and incapacitated by the fumes of lead paint, a similar claim would not have been allowed by the solicitor. This is made perfectly clear by his decision in the John Freiman case.