£50 FOR AN EYE?

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 471, 28 September 1928, Page 13

£SO FOR AN EYE?

REMOVAL AFTER ACCIDENT Claiming to have suffered the loss of an eye as the result of an accident while working for the Auckland Bottle Company, Ltd., last January, Leonard Ernest Verella, motor driver, sought compensation in the Arbitration Court yesterday. In his statement of claim plaintiff said the accident happened as the result of a case of bottles falling and breaking and a splinter lodging in hi£ right eyes. He had to have it removed after a few days. From February 8 to March £ plaintiff was paid wages by the defendant company, based on the assumption of total incapacity. His wages at tlio time of the accident were £4 13s 6d a week, and £416 compensation was claimed. Mr. J. Fleming appeared for plaintiff.

Tho accident and removal of the eye were admitted in tho defence conducted by Mr. F. L. G. West. It was, however, denied that removal was rendered necessary as a result of the injury. Plaintiff’s parents gave evidence that he had met with an accident to the eye when a child. It had been operated on, but left a certain degree of sight. Di A. G. Talbot, who removed the eye, said that plaintiff told him he had not had the use of the eye for many years and wanted it taken out. Evidence for the defence was also given by Dr. W. G. Borrie. Verella*s employer said plaintiff was performing his duties as well as ever he did.

Giving judgment, Mr. Justice Frazer said tho court must regard the eye as not having been industrially useful before th© accident. There was no evidence to show that his earning capacity had been lessened, but he could not be classed in efficiency with a man who had the use of two eyes. This was a case where a small sum could be given, and the court had decided to award £SO compensation.