AWH are pleased to have helped a client win a case against four different defendants, after they sustained noise induced hearing loss whilst working in a multitude of jobs.

As a lineman, our client was responsible for maintenance of the railways. This involved him using pieces of equipment that we perceived to have potential to injure, and also damage our client’s hearing. He would be stationed at the side of the railway lines and partake in a variety of maintenance tasks which included but was not limited to re-positioning and replacing sleepers and joints in the tracks. To do this, our client and his gang would use equipment to break up concrete such as pneumatic drills, kango hammers, stihl saws and grinders. Use of these pieces of equipment would vary dependent upon the duties at that moment but could be used for a continuous period of 4 to 5 hours per shift along a stretch of track. Our client was never provided with adequate training in relation to the dangers of noise or how to protect themselves from exposure to noise. As a result, our client suffered from noise induced hearing loss for their exposure.

During the case, the defendant conceded that the levels of noise would have been loud enough to cause noise induced hearing loss but continued to defend the claim on the grounds that the limitation period was not valid. They also argued it on the grounds of medical causation, so both the claimant and defendant had instructed their own medical experts who had provided both individual and joint statements to assist the court. Our client was also employed as a Machine Operator for a period where he would be part of the process to manufacture tyre tread for aircraft tyres. He would be based in a very large factory space, operating a cracking machine. This machine was used to break down the rubber to a softer compound so that it can be manipulated and shaped into the desired tyre tread. Once it had been broken down, our client would then use an extruder to convert the softened rubber into the tyre tread.

As well as the noise from the machinery that our client used, there was also a variety of other machinery throughout the factory that would emit and in turn reverberate noise around the factory. The Defendant failed to provide our client with adequate training or monitoring of the noise levels and provide the right hearing protection. It was argued that this exposure contributed to our client’s already diminished hearing via the further exposure to noise.

Our team of specialist solicitors were happy to assist our client to get the compensation that he needed to help him with the hearing loss that he had sustained due to the negligence of several of his employers. An employer always has a duty of care to reasonably protect all of their employees, and they could be liable to have a claim made against them when they fail in this duty.

If you think that you have been affected by a similar circumstance, then get in touch today for a discussion with our experts.

Read more on our industrial hearing loss claims page.

Get in touch

Hear more about the member(s) of our team featured above: