STRANGE COINCIDENCE

Waipa Post, Volume 34, Issue 2033, 16 July 1927, Page 5

STRANGE COINCIDENCE

TWO SONS SUE FATHER. BOTH LOSE EYE AT WORK. Two cases presenting unique features were heard in the Arbitration Court, at Hamilton on Thursday afternoon, when two brothers, Roy and Patrick Francis O'Reilly, farm hands, Kihikihi, each sought to recover com--pensation from their father, who was also their employer, sor the loss pf an eye. Defendant was Phillip O'Reilly, farmer, Kihikihi. Mr Justice Frazer presided. Mr P. G. Harkness, who appeared for the'plaintiffs, explained that the circumstances of the claims were most peculiar. Roy O'Reilly lost his left eye in March, 1921, through being hit by a. flying staple which he was using while effecting improvements to defendant's farm. buildings. Patrick Francis O'Reilly lost his right eye in February, 1922, in the same circumstances as his brother lost his left eye. Both boys were 16 years of age when the accidents occurred. Counsel said defendant was anxious to do all he could for his boys. He had sent them to specialists and had paid them wages. The parties came to Court the amount of con\pensation, they could not agree upon. - .

Mr Harkness submitted that the Court must assess compensation on the basis of the average earnings of a farm hand of 21 years of age. In each case, he said, the plaintiff's injured eye was industrially useless, although each had a slight measure of sight. Specialists'.certificates to this effect were handed in. Mr E .V. Stace, for defendant, said the position was as explained by Mr Harkness. The Court was desired to assess the basis of compensation. After a short retirement His Honor said {the Court was'agreed that the injured eyes were industrially useless and that the compensation should be assessed oh the basis'of £3 10s as-'the earning of a farm labourer. The-Court"awarded Patrick O'Reilly £1 0s 7d a week and Roy O'Reilly 19 s 3d a week from the dates of the accident to the present. As the full: period of liability of six years had elapsed in the case of Roy he would be paid a lump sum. Patrick would receive a lump sum equivalent to £1 0s 7d a week from'the date ,of the accident and a-further lump sum computed according to the scale laid down in the Workers' Compensation Act for the remainder of the period of liability; - ,'