Claim of Hobertis v. Columbia Shirt Co.

186 A.D. 397, 173 N.Y.S. 606, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5546
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 8, 1919
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 186 A.D. 397 (Claim of Hobertis v. Columbia Shirt Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Claim of Hobertis v. Columbia Shirt Co., 186 A.D. 397, 173 N.Y.S. 606, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

Lyon, J.:

The claimant lost the use of an eye. She was near sighted, having not to exceed fifty per cent vision. The appellants [398]*398claim she should only be allowed for the loss of one-half vision. The Commission made an award for the permanent loss of the use of an eye. From such an award this appeal is taken.

The statute does not provide that the loss of the use of an eye shall be compensated by an award based upon the amount of vision which existed previous to the accident, whether it be fifty per cent or eighty per cent of vision lost. It awards specific compensation for the loss of an eye. It is a matter of common knowledge that very few persons have complete and perfect vision. The claimant was working with defective vision. So far as appears her work was entirely satisfactory to her employer, at least so far as the wages she received. The wages received by her must be considered her wage1 earning capacity with defective vision. She lost the use of her eye, such as she had, and is entitled to compensation therefor based upon her earning capacity.

The award should be affirmed, with costs.

Award unanimously affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Landry v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
236 So. 2d 235 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1970)
Claim of Ladutsky v. Tri-Motor Auto Service
6 A.D.2d 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
Tomes v. Gray
301 S.W.2d 389 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1957)
McKenzie v. Gulf Hills Hotel, Inc.
74 So. 2d 830 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1954)
Wilson v. State Industrial Accident Commission
219 P.2d 138 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1950)
Martinez v. Pan American Airways, Inc.
1 Fla. Supp. 6 (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, 1949)
Kraushar v. Cummins Construction Corp.
25 A.2d 439 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1942)
Ames v. Sanitary District No. 1
2 N.W.2d 530 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1942)
Haas v. Globe Indemnity Co.
132 So. 246 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1931)
Shelbyville v. Kendrick
29 S.W.2d 251 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1930)
Claim of Bervilacqua v. Clark
225 A.D. 190 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1929)
Przekop v. Ramapo Ajax Corp.
214 A.D. 512 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)
Hessley v. Minneapolis Steel Construction Co.
195 N.W. 274 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 A.D. 397, 173 N.Y.S. 606, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-hobertis-v-columbia-shirt-co-nyappdiv-1919.