WORKER’S LOSS OF AN EYE

Taranaki Daily News, 20 October 1933, Page 9

WORKER’S LOSS OF AN EYE

DECISION OF APPEAL COURT, QUESTION FOR LOWER COURT. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Oct. 18. In the Court of Appeal to-day judgment was given in the case of Boyes v. Smyth concerning an injury to an eye of a farmer’s employee. Sir Michael Myers, Chief Justice, said that the Court could not see how it could be said that plaintiff had lost the permanent use of the injured eye. The question for the opinion of the court was therefore answered in the negative. His Honour pointed out that this did not mean that plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for the injury which he received, but that the question was one for tire Court below. The case was removed from the Arbitration Court, Auckland, for consideration of certain questions of law by the Court of Appeal. The -plaintiff named was Albert Boyes, farm hand, of Titirangi, Auckland, and defendant was Alfred John Smyth, farmer, Waitakere. Tire facts stated were that plaintiff, while in the employ of defendant cutting gorse, received a thorn in his left eye. As a result of the accident the lens had to be removed, and he claimed as compensation £174 16s 8d for the total loss of the sight of the eye, under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Medical evidence showed that the eye at the present time was sufficient for seeing large objects and giving a sense of locality, but with glasses plaintiff had practically normal vision, being able to read small print. But if he used glasses with the defective eye, he could not use the right eye, because it would not focus properly. His earning power had not been diminished.