COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF SIGHT.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14760, 2 September 1913, Page 7

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF SIGHT.

AN INTERESTING LEGAL POINT. (PBE3S ASSOCIATION TEI-EOItAM.) ', AUCKLAND, September 1. ; Tbo caso of Albert Henry Hales (MrSelwyn Mayes) v. Segar iiros., c ; (Mr Richmond), brought beforo tno Arbitration Court, raised an unusual point. Plaintiff claimed ac compensation Jor tho loss of Jiie one remaining eyo, tlw sum of £370 14e sd, wiuch with tho Bum of £70 17s Gd already -paid,-would bring tho total amount up to tho full - compensation payable for tho loss ot W Hifles,'it was explained, had lost puo eyo 24 years ago, and subsequently hntl ' joined tho firm-of . Ssogar Bros, In 9 October last ho had-met with anothei accident whereby he lost they sight of his one remaining eye. MY Mayes pointed out that for the loss of one eye a worker was entitled to 30 per cent, of what would be awarded m tho case ot total incapacity, whereas a tnan losing the sight of both eyes was entitled to a full 100 per cent, compensation. As his client was now without the uso ot cither of his eyes, counsel urged that he ■was entitled to full compensation on twc grounds; firstly, because. the Act in. providing for only 30 per cent, compensation in the case of the loss of one eyo presupposed the possession of another eye, and secondly, on tlio .... ground that claimant was totally incapacitated. . ■•.-■■ t Mr Richmond paid that tho Act made no provision at all for such a case, but - that it laid it down clearly that for the loss of one eyo the worker was entitled to only 30 per cent, cpmpensation. To support tho contention that no more than 30 per cr-nt- should be paid, he remarked that if Mr Majes's contention was upheld, an employee iosing first ono limb and then another woiild ultimately receive a great deal more than tho amount laid down as being payable for "total incapacity. Judgment was reserved.