Landry v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

I respectfully dissent from the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for the loss of his *239eye. I do so with great respect for that commonsense and balance exhibited by the majority opinion: for in my opinion the majority’s restrictive interpretation taken of the compensation act violates its legislative intent.

Before the accident, the cornea of th,e plaintiff’s left eye had been injured. His only remaining vision in this eye was hand motion within a foot. He had resisted previous advice to have the eye removed.

The majority concedes that as a result of an accident at work, it became necessary to…