LOSS OF AN EYE.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 303, 21 December 1921, Page 6

LOSS OF AN EYE.

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION". In the Arbitration Court to-day Michael Roeandick, labourer, of Okahukura (Mr. Hunt) proceeded against the Crown (Mr. Meredith) claiming compensation fot an accident which caused the loss of an eye. It was set out that plaintiff was in the employ of the Public Works Department at Okahukura, and in May, 1921/, while endeavmiring to destroy certain detonators unfit for use they exploded, whereby he suffered total losa of the sight of his left eye, whilst the right eye was slightly affected, and plaintiff also sustained burns and abrasions to his right hand. Fifty-two pounds fourteen shillings and sixpence was claimed for the time plaintiff was totally incapacitated in May and September, and compensation at the rat» of £ 1 17/4 per week was claimed for thu loss of the eye, or, as an alternative, a lump sum of £435 11/8. The defence was that the Crown was not liable, as Rosandick did not destroy the detonators in the course of his employment. Rosandick stated in the course of evidence that the detonators were bad ones. They lay on the shelf loose in a shed, and were an absolute danger, as they might easily have fallen to the floor when the workmen came in and threw down their tools, thus shaking the shed. He asked the foreman what i was the best thing to do with the detonators, and he replied, "The best thing is to light a fire and put them go for your life." Some timf later they were shifting location and he again asked the foreman (Borthwick) what was to be done with the detonators, and he replied. '"You will have to destroy them." Plaintiff therefore wrapped them in newspaper a.nd dropped them on to a small fire which he had lit for the purpose. He turned to run, but his working coat, which he carried on his left arm, fell on his foot, impeding him, and the explosion took piace before he could get away. 'He was taken to Taumaruluii that night by motor and later taken to the Auckland Hospital, from which he was discharged on September 12. To Mr. Meredith, Rosandick said he destroyed the detonators because they were dangerous. The foreman eaid "'We must destroy _ them." Mr. Lennane did not tell witness not to put the detonators on the fire. Mr. Meredith contended that the plaintiff took it upon himself to throw 120 detonators into a blazing fire without any instructions to do co. It eeemed the action of a man contemplating suicide, or at. lcaet a most idiotic thing to do. Judge Frazer: There are occasions on which a man does jthings in the interests or supposed interests of hie employer. Mr. Meredith: The obvious thing to do was to put the detonators safely out of the way and leave it to responsible people to see to their destructionIt was not a ease of acting in a sudden | emergency in the interests of safety— it was a reckless art. Mr. Meredith proceeded to call evidence to show that Rosandick had not ! actually been instructed to destroy the detonators and that in any case he ; did not follow the ordinary practice of I destruction by fire, which was to place the explosives on the fuel and light the fuel afterwards, so as to give time to get away.