IMPAIRED EYESIGHT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2923, 23 March 1910, Page 14

IMPAIRED EYESIGHT.

ACTION AGAINST INSURANCE CO. WELLINGTON, March 16. In the Supreme Court to-day judgment was delivered by the Chief Justice in the case F. J. MacDonald v. the Mutual Life Association of Australasia. Plaintiff claimed £SO under an accident policy. The facts were that in September, 1908, while opening a tin of cheese, some liquid matter spurted into one of his eyes, with the ultimate result that he lost the sight of it. After being eleven weeks in a private hospital the company offered a sum of £5 10s in settlement, claiming that MacDonald had not been "permanently or partially" disabled, and was therefore not entitled to full compensation, in as much as Dr Hislop had certified that claimant had still "perception of light" and the "ability to perceive in a very blurred manner the outline of prominent objects." The question involved was as to whether if a man " loses " the sight of one eye to the extent that he has only a blurred perception of objects, was his disablement a " permanent or partial " one within the meaning of an accident insurance policy. In this case his Honor said that the question turned wholly on the words " comolete loss of the sight of one eye." The doctor did not say that there was complete loss. Judgment was entered for the defendant company. Costs, £5 ss, with disbursements, were allowed.