THE LOSS OF SIGHT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XL, Issue 13170, 2 September 1913, Page 7

THE LOSS OF SIGHT.

INJURED WORKMAN'S CLAIM

(Per Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, last night. Tho case of Albert Henry Hales (Mr Selwyn Mays) v. Seagar Bros., engineers (Mr Richmond), brought before the Arbitration Court to-day, raised an unusual point.

Plaintiff claimed as compensation for the loss of his one remaining eye the sum of £370 14s sd, which, with the sum of £70 17s 6d already paid, would bring the total amount up to the full compensation payable for the loss of two eyes. Hales, it was explained, had lost one eye 24 years ago, and subsequently had joined the firm of Seagar Bros. In October last he had met with another accident, whereby he lost the sight of his one remaining eye.

Mr Mays pointed out that for the loss of ono eye a worker was entitled to 30 per cent of what would be awarded m the case of total incapacity, whereas a man losing the sight of both eyes was entitled to the full 100 per cent compensation. As his client was now without the use of either of his eyes, counsel urged that he was entitled to full compensation on two grounds — firstly, because the Act, m providing for only 30 f>er cent compensation m the case of the oss of one eye, presupposed the possession of another eye, and, secondly, on the ground that the claimant was totally incapacitated. Mr Richmond said the Act made no provision for such cases, but laid doAvn clearly that for the loss of one eye a worker was entitled to only 30 per cent compensation. To support the contention that no more than 30 per cent should be paid, he remarked that if Mr May's contention was upheld, an employee losing first one limb and then another would ultimately receive a great deal more than the amount laid down as being payable for total incapacitation. Judgment was reserved.