INJURED EYE

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 12244, 4 May 1934, Page 2

INJURED EYE

COMPENSATION FOR MAORI. ARBITRATION COURT AWARD. .?• ; Arising <jut of an injury to his left eye, Traveller Pakuy a Maori, secured compensation in an action against the East Coast Commissioner heard before the Arbitration Com fc at Gisborne yesterday. Bis . Honor. Mr. Justice Frazer was on the bench and with him as ussessoi s uci c Messrs. W. Cecil Prime (employers) and A. L. Montoith (workers). • The statement, of claim set on* that in June, 1033, plaintiff entered into ;a scrub cutting contract o}\ Pohuturoa station. On August 25. whilo cutting manuka scrub, plain, tiff’s left eye was accidentally injured and he was wholly incapacitat od from that day to January 36, », period of 22 J weeks. It was further alleged that the injury caused lossof sight of the eye. Legal formalities had been complied with, if was also stated. plaintiff, therefore, claimed £4O 10s Gd as weekly compensation during his period ol total incapacity less £ls 7s paid on account; £314 2s Gd as compensation payable in respect of the permanent injury; £1 modicaj expenses; ana such other relief a* the court deemed meet.

In the statement of defence, the facts of the accident were admitted'. also the rate of wages and liability for compensation, but it was denied that the injury caused the loss of sight of the eye. A s a further defence it was contended that all compensation due to plaintiff had been paid.

Mr. F. H. Jones fWairoa) appeared for plaintiff and Mr. li. J'. O’Leary (Wellington) for defendant-

Plaintiff gave evidence regarding his work prior to the accident and stated that for years he had been earning up to £1 per day. An op oration was performed bv Dr. Scoullar. Since the accident he had practically not worked, except for a little weeding. He had attempted chopping and fencing, But his efforts wore not very successful. Witness described various incidents wliicn showed how his sight had been aTTec tod.

Dr. 11. Goulding Rico, who examined plaintiff’s eye, stated that the injury had resulted in astigmatism, with diffused vision and * possibly double vision. This effect was permanent. Witness did not consider plaintiff would be able to safely carry on chopping, fencing or shear jug. Even labouring work would have to he of the most simple nature. Ill's loss of earning power was about 50 per cent. Dr. E. B. Jardinc gave corroborative evidence. Peter Olsen, of Te Reinga, stated that, prior to the accident, plaintitt was an expert shearer, fencer, horse breaker, scrub-cutter and other similar occupations. Usually plaintiff was. “boss man” of the gangs. Wit ness also gave illustrations of how plaintiff’s (sight had suffered.

This concluded the case for the plaintiff. Dr. S. Sc-oullar, of Napier, eye specialist, was the first witues s for the defence. He described the condition of the eye before and after the operation performed hv witness. With use he considered the sight of the eye could he improved. He had examined the eye that morning and considered it liad not gone hack. It appeared to him that plaintiff had not suffered total Ios s of the iiulus trial use of the eye. though he would put thi s loss at dO per cent. Within three months, witness believed, plaintiff should be able to earn just as much as before the accident. .It was merely a matter of growing accustomed to the new conditions. After a brief retirement, the court announced that it had been possible to make only a rough guess at the permanent incapacity of plaintiff. It was certainly admitted that Paki) had been incapacitated for 22-J weeks and for this period he was entitled to full compensation. Besides full compensation for 221 weeks, however, it had been decided to allow 30 per cent, compensation from the end of that period to the date of hearing, 15 per cent, thereafter, £l2/12/medical expenses, expenses of medical witnesses, £4/4/-, and witnesses’ travelling expenses.