#### Stoughton Wagon Company and another, Appellants, vs. Myre and another, Respondents.

*March 18*

April *11, 1916.*

*Workmen’s compensation: Relative injury clause: Construction: Partial loss of vision.*

Under that part of sub. (6), see. 2394 — 9, Stats., generally referred to as the relative injury clause, — providing for compensation which “shall bear such relation to the amount” stated in the schedule “as the disabilities bear to those produced by the injuries named in the schedule,” — an employee whose injuries resulted in the permanent loss of four fifths of the vision of one eye, but did not affect his earning capacity, was properly awarded indemnity to the amount of four fifths of the allowance provided in the schedule for “total blindness of one eye.” *northwestern 3?. Co. v. Industrial Comm.*161 Wis. 450, distinguished.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county: E. Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action to set aside an award made by the *Industrial Commission*under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The facts were that the defendant Myre, October 24, 1914, while performing service in the employ of the plaintiff *Wagon Company*(both being subject to the provisions of the Workmen’s *133Compensation Act, secs. 2394 — 1 to 2394 — 31, Stats. 1913), was struck in the left eye by tbe bead of a bolt, causing injuries wbicb resulted in tbe permanent loss of four fifths of tbe sight of that eye. His earning capacity was not affected by tbe injury. Tbe *Industrial Commission*awarded him indemnity for tbe loss of vision under tbe provisions of sub. (5), sec. 2394 — 9, Stats., bolding that tbe claimant was entitled to four fifths of'tbe allowance prescribed by that subdivision for “total blindness of one eye” under tbe terms of that part of said subdivision generally referred to as tbe relative injury clause, wbicb says that “in all other cases in this class” the compensation “shall bear such relation to tbe amount” stated in tbe schedule “as tbe disabilities bear to those produced by tbe injuries named in tbe schedule.”

Tbe section will be found quoted at length in tbe case of *Northwestern F. Co. v. Industrial Comm.*461 Wis. 450, 152 N. W. 856, and need not be repeated here.

Tbe award was affirmed by tbe circuit court and tbe plaintiffs appeal.

Eor tbe appellants there was a brief by Quarles, *Spence &*Quarles, attorneys, and *I. A.*Fish, of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Fish.*

Eor tbe respondent *Industrial Commission of Wisconsin*there was a brief by tbe *Attorney General*and *Winfield W. Gilman,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Gilman.*

Winslow, C. J.

It was held in *Northwestern F. Co. v. Industrial Comm.*161 Wis. 450, 152 N. W. 856, that a partial and permanent impairment of tbe strength and usefulness of an arm was not within tbe class of injuries scheduled in sub. (5), sec. 2394 — 9, Stats. 1913, because that schedule referred to tbe physical loss of an arm, and mere impairment without loss of tbe member could not be held to be in that class.

Tbe case before us, however, is plainly not within that rea-*134aoning. The schedule gives a certain compensation for total blindness of one eye, the physical organ itself being retained, and in the present case, there is partial blindness of the eye, the physical organ being retained. The court is of opinion that this injury is logically within the statutory class and hence that compensation under the relative injury provision of the statute was properly awarded.

The relative injury clause in question has been amended by ch. 378, Laws 1915, so that there is now no doubt of the legislative purpose to make it applicable to all cases of permanent disability resulting from injuries to those members of the body or its faculties named in the schedule although the member be not severed or the faculty totally lost.

*By the GouH.*— Judgment affirmed.