LOSS OP REMAINING EYE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1844, 2 September 1913, Page 7

LOSS OP REMAINING EYE.

9 PECULIAR POINT RAISED. (By Telegraph—Prees Association.) 'Auckland, September 1. A case by Albort Honry Hales (Mr. Solwyn Mays) v. Segar.Broa., engineers (Mr. Richmond), which was brought before tho Arbitration Court to-day raised an unusual point. Plaintiff claimed, as compensation for/ tho loss of ■ his one remaining eyo, a'sum of £370 14s. 5d., which, with a sum of £70,175. 6d. already paid, would bring the total amount up to tho full compensation payable for the loss of two eyos. It was explained that Hales had lost one eye' 24 yoars ago, and, subsequently, had joined tho firm of Segar Bros. In October last ho had mot with another accident, whorcby ho lost tho sight of the one remaining eyo. Mr. Mays pointed out that for tho loss of one «yo a worker was entitled to 30 per cent, of what would be awarded in tho caso of total.incapacity, whorcas a man losing tho sight of both eyes was entitled to 100 per cent, compensation. As his client was now without the uso of eithor eye, his counsel urged that ho was entitled to full compensation on two grounds: Firstly, betfauso tho Act, in providing for only 30 per cent, compensation in tho case of loss of one eye, prosdpposed the possession of another eye, and, secondly, on the ground that claimant, was totally incapacitated. Mr. Richmond said that tho-Act made no provision at all for such a case, but laid it down "clearly that, for tho loss, of one eyo a worker was entitled to only 30 per cent.. compensation. To support tho contention' that no moro than 30 per cent, should be paid, ho remarked that, if Mr. Mays's contention was upheld, an employer* losing first ono'limb and then another would ultimately receivo a great deal inoro than the amount, laid down as being payable, for total incapacity. Judgment was reserved. (!■ -