The broad ax., 1916-08-19

ae mat OF trained 1ur1sts. The result
ant Of the counting of judicial noses
was that a majority of the court exon.
Grated both the doctor and the step.
father, but held the mother Of the lun.
attic liable, and this despite the opin.
lon OF one Judge that the mother was
the least blamable and the doctor was
the most culpable of the defendants.
As already indicated, the decision
Will be Of wide interest because one of
first impression. Without venturing
to express a very decided opinion in
the face Of so much judicial conflict
OF view, two suggestions may be Of
fered: (1) AS the insane person had
never manifested homicidal or suicid-
al, or otherwise dangerous, tendencies,
and was furthermore apparently on
the mend from what at the worst
seemed but a temporary arrangement,
1t is doubtful whether there was suf-
hctent ground for authorizing a jury
to find that either of the defendants
was responsible for the injuries to the
plaintiff, under the well-known rule
that a person is liable only for the
reasonably to be anticipated conse-
quence of his own acts or omissions.
As laid down by the New York Court
Of Appeals in Hall o. New York Tel.
Co., reported in this journal today,
"the law requires that the injury must
so directly result from a wrongful
act that, according to common exper-
fence and the usual course Of events,
1t might under the particular circum-
stances have reasonably been expect
ed" (2) In the case of an insane
person who has shown homicidaI or
other violent proclivities, any person
who assumes the responsibility of let
ting him go at large may be held la
BILE for the consequences Of his acts.
Loss OF VIsIoN.-The Industrial Ac-
cident Board of Michigan awarded full
damages prescribed by law for the
total loss Of an eye of claimant under
the Workmen's Compensation Act
where there was a 80 per cert. loss
of normal vision. Expert testimony
showed that by the aid Of glasses so
per cent. of normal vision was re.
tanned.
The Michigan Supreme Court re-
versed the award In Cline .. Stude-
baker Corporation, 155 Northwestern
SIG, Judge Person stating
the reasons Of the Court:
HE (claimant) does not testify to
any impairment of his ability to work,
nor to any reduction in wages, because
of the loss of eyesight; and 1t was de-
termined by this Court In Hirschkorn
D. Fiege Desk Co., $50 N. W. 851, that
the statute does>not award compensa-
ton for the partial loss of an eye
except as measured by lessehed earn.
ings. Although there is no special
finding upon the point, it is evident
from the amount allowed that the In
dustrial Accident Board treated the
injury as the loss of an eye,' rather
than as a partial loss, and that it
made its allowance under the schedule
of fixed liabilities contained in Sec.
ton 10 of the acts (Pub. Acts 1912
No. 10). Unless, therefore, the
award can be sustained on that theory.
it must be held to have been unwar-
ranted.
"The use of glasses is a very ordi.
nary occurrence, both by the young
and the old. 1t is unnecessary to de
termine whether the loss Of 80 per
cent. of the sight is substantially the
loss of the eye, because that is not
the present case. Ninety per cent. of
the sight is not lost when it can be
to so per cent. by the use
Of common appliances. And it is the
duty of the sufferer to minimize the
injury as much as he reasonably may.
We cannot help but feel it unfortu,
nate, however, that further tests of
the eye were not made so as to ex.
clude all possible chance Of mistake
in so important a matter"
RIGHT OF STATE TO DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST ALIEN COLLATERAL HEIRS IN
OF SUCCESSION TAx.-Under
the treaty between Great Britain and
the United States, entered into in
1899, it is provided by Article 5 that
in all that concerns the right Of dis
posing of every kind Of property, real
and personal, citizens or subjects OF
each of the high contracting parties
shall in the dominions Of the other
enjoy the rights which are or may be
to the citizens or subjects OF