Dyer v. Abrasive Dressing & Tool Co.

While, for the reason hereinafter stated, I am in accord with the result reached by Mr. Justice Starr, I disagree with his statement: “It is clear that if he (plaintiff) had less than 20 per cent, of vision before the injury, he did not have an eye to lose within the meaning of the statute.” Immediately following the quoted sentence, Justice Starr says:

“In its opinion the department made a finding of fact that plaintiff had lost more than 80 per cent, of vision in his left eye prior to his present injury. This was in effect a finding-that he had less-than 20 per cent, of vision in the eye…