WORKER’S EYE INJURED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16260, 29 October 1920, Page 8

WORKER’S EYE INJURED.

COMPENSATION CLAIM. Thomas Ramsay (Mr Acland) proceeded against Cooper and Duncan, Ltd. (Air Al. J. Gresson), in the Arbitration Court this afternoon, asking the Court to assess the compensation and to declare the defendants’ liability, for injury to the loft eye icceived by plaintiff whilst employed by the defendants. The facts agreed were that the plaintiff, on Alarch 26 last, was working in the defendants’ blacksmith’s shop, when a bolt flew out of a pair of tongs, and li.it his let eye. He had been earning £4 15s weekly, and had received by seven weekly payments a total of £36 12s 6d. Plaintiff claimed that the eye had been permanently partially injured, and its vision might be lost altogether. Hetendants denied that the injury was likely to be permanent, and that the plaintiff’s earning power had therefore been diminished, and left the Court to declare the liability. . 13r . Manning said that plaintiff’s injured eye now had but one-sixth of the normal vision, and with glasses half-vision, and it might get worse. It could never get right again. Plaintiff said that after the accident he started at the Addington workshops, but was dismissed on the doctor reporting his vision was defoctive. He had not tried to get employ* ment again at the defendants’. . His Honor i I cannot see that plaintiff c;iy claim compensation at this stage, but only a declaration of liability. ’ Air Acland: That’s what we really want, to put ns on the safe side foi years to come. Air Gresson: We do not oppose that, and have not at any time. Mr Gresson advised the plaintiff to approach Cooper and Duncan for reemployment. Tlio Court made the declaration' of liability asked for, and a suspensory award of one penny weekly. The compensation claim fLuoni (Air Malley) v. Blogg, was adjourned to the next session of tho Court, with a »icw to settlement meanwhile.