THE INDUSTRIAL EYE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 236, 5 October 1928, Page 8

THE INDUSTRIAL EYE.

ASSESSMENT OF VALUE. FACTORS TO BE' CONSIDERED. ARBITRATION COURT DISCUSSION. Factors to be considered in assessing the industrial value of a human eye were discussed when additional medical evidence was heard in the Arbitration Court this morning in the case, conpnenced at Hamilton earlier in the week, in which James Eckford, shopkeeper, of Te Kuiti (Mr. E. M. Mackersey), claimed compensation from Emily Maria Cotter, widow, of Te Kuiti, and Frances Elizabeth Mcintosh, married woman, of Te Kuiti (Mr. R. D. Bagnall). Defendants are partners in a butcher's business, carried on under the firm name of R. and P. Cotter. Plaintiff sought to receive £35 for a period of nine weeks' incapacity caused through an injury to his right eye, £514 for the total loss of the eye, medical expenses, and other reasonable relief. In council's statement of claim he set out that he was employed by defendants as head shopman in their establishment, and, in the course of his work on February 2 last his eye was injured by a small fragment of bone. The eye became inflamed, and eventually had to be removed. For the defence, Dr. W. A. Fairclough said it was a remarkable coincidence, that the plaintiff came to him three years ago with the same story as he told now—that he had injured his eye. as a result of a piece of bone or meat dropping into it when he was hanging up a joint. Eckford had a defective eye before 1925, and it should have been removed previously. In discussing the industrial value of an eye, Dr. Fairclough ventured the opinion that, in the Arbitration Court, far too much importance was attached to the acuteness of vision. Other things to be considered were the appreciation of objects and the effect of vision on one's consciousness. The subject was an obscure one, but efforts were now being made in England to adjust the value of the eye. After a retirement the Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, Mr. Justice Frazer saying that a majority of the Court had come to the conclusion that the eye was not industrially useful. However, they thought the weight of evidence showed that the serious trouble was caused by the accident in February. Compensation would be allowed plaintiff for the nine weeks period he was absent from work, together" with medical and witnesses' expenses. Mr. A. L. Monteith gave a dissenting opinion on the question of the industrial value of the eye.