LOSS OF EYESIGHT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 88, 14 April 1913, Page 6

LOSS OF EYESIGHT.

TWO LEGAL POINTS. DECIDED BY. ARBITRATION'COURT.' Judgment was given by the 'Arbitration Court to-day in the action William Grace v. Auckland Gas' Company, in which plaintiff claimed. compensation in respect to an injury ito his right eye. It was admitted by the parties that the eye was useless in respect to plaintiffs ability to" earn wages, and that, it woirid for this purpose :be useless if he lost the. sight of his left eye. It was further agreed that the right eye would, in the event of the plaintiff : losing the sight of• his left eye, be of some, use to him in respect to finding his .way about, and generally in. respect to matters not connected with the earning of hie living. . The Workers* Compensation Act, 1908; said the judgment, provided that. the compensation for certain injuries should be. assessed on .the basis of the total loss of the sight -of an eye, and the. Amendment Act- 1911, provided, that-the.%ex-pression "loss"of* • included -'permanent loss of the use of the eye. The question to be determined in the case .was.whether under this provision the loss of the sight of an eye meant a .complete loss for all purposes, or merely the purposes of earning a living. The Court held that,the plaintiff was entitled to have compensation assessed on the haeis that he bad suffered a permanent loss of the sight of bis right' eye; The parties-could agree as to the amount for which judgment was to be entered. In the meantime, further consideration of the action was reserved, also the Question of costs. Mr: S. Mays appeared for , plaintiff, and Mr. H. P. Richmond for defendants. • The Court also delivered judgment in the case James Alfred Deeming versus Newmarket' Borough Council,. action to recover - compensation, for.. injuries received to plaintiff's left' ■ eye. Deeming suffered an accidental injury to hie left eye, as the. immediate result of ■ which he was temporarily. . incapacitated" for fourteen weeks. The' , present condition of the eye, the judgment stated, was that without glasses Deeming had :onethifd of 'normal :vision, : and' with glasses two-thirds of normal vision. The plaintiff sought: (a) Judgment against the defendant for compensation at Id per week; or (b) a "declaration of liability under section .26 of the: Workers' Compensation. Act, 1908, and the defendant contended that. the facts did not as a matter of law entitle the plaintiff to judgment for any compensation whatsoever, or to the benefit: of eectiqn 28 of the Workers', Compensation Act; Th<s question for the Court was: Is the plains tiff entitled to the compensation claimed, or to a declaration.-of liability undeir .eec.- ,- tion 26, for six months, from the:.date of the accident? ■ .--.- . ■.. ,- rj It: was agreed by. the parties that if compensation at the rate of Id per week was ordered, such order should entitle either party at any time withinja. -year. from date to move the Court to renew the same, and on : such review the. payments might be increased or finally ended. It was further agreed that if no j increase of such payments was ordered within a year all- claims and proceedings should cease: It was held by the Court that the case did not come within the terms of section 28 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 190 S. Sub-section 1 "of that section did not apply, for the reason that the injury suffered by the plaintiff did not cause incapacity for a time, and therefore could not be described as an injury which did not presently ■ eaiise incapacity. The plaintiff was not", entitled, therefore, to obtain a declaration of liability against the defendant, but was entitled' to, a. judgment for compensation at therate of Id per week on the term's set out in the agreement of the, parties. - The plaintiff was allowed £5 5/for costs. ■ Mr.;Selwyn-Mays acted on behalf of the''plaintiff Mt. "Richmond;; for defendants. . ■ . ■'.'■!..