Jump to content

Hearing Loss Claim at Royal Opera House


Junior8

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I do have to smile a bit because this is now 'news', when it's really just the first case of classical music, and it's world having the problem. The rest of the music industry have addressed it for years now, with all kinds of products being on the shelves. Odd that the rock and roll industry saw the dangers and developed protection. I'd bet that when this gets to court, much of the discussion will centre on looking after your own hearing in contrast to the employers duty to look after your hearing. Perhaps it will also be the case that certain musical pieces are so well known for being loud that the orchestra managers and the players all know about it a long time in advice. I'm sure Anna has this problem and mentions it from time to time with her orchestras.

 

The traditional layout of orchestras means everyone should be far more aware of this than random placement when people turn up ay venues. It's sad somebody got injured in this way, but am I the only one who gets bookings, and does a little research into who I'll be working for? When I find it's people known for being very loud, I pack a few appropriate extras into the toolbox.

 

The only thing different in this case is that it's not Phil Collins, it's the butt of so many jokes, the Viola player! I think I'll share it with a viola playing friend on Facebook!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number of interesting implications here http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-35938704

 

This could be viewed either way - we do not have enough accurate information. 137dBCpeak is the upper action level in CONAWR 2005 but it's not clear if it really means 'peak' as we understand it. What's needed is a noise exposure profile - preferably the one the employer should have taken when carrying out the initial risk assessment ;-) There should also be a baseline audiogram taken when the musician was hired...together with subsequent health surveillance. Without this information it would be hard to determine whether the issue of NIHL and Recruitment was due solely to exposure in this job, or if he already had hearing damage. The issue of lack of information and training may be a valid one, but we don't know what the employer actually provided.

Although such claims are commonplace in industry, it will be interesting to see how this turns out....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get quite a few calls from firms asking if I have been exposed to noisy working areas, offering a no-win no-fee deal. I say yes. They get excited, until the word entertainment/music is mentioned. Then they always say they can't help and hang up. I've always wondered why?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get quite a few calls from firms asking if I have been exposed to noisy working areas, offering a no-win no-fee deal. I say yes. They get excited, until the word entertainment/music is mentioned. Then they always say they can't help and hang up. I've always wondered why?

 

I'd suggest contributory negligence. The closely supervised worker on a factory floor should be told when to wear hearing protection etc. and can try to claim if he can show hearing loss attributable to the job. The musician is a) probably self employed b) engages in many different noisy activities and c) often controls his or her own noise exposure. It's most likely a lot harder making a claim for negligence stick in such circumstances.

 

I did have one of those phone calls a while back, and genuinely missed part of the caller's opening sentence. I said, 'pardon, could you repeat that' and they hung up on me.... :-)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd that the rock and roll industry saw the dangers and developed protection.

Not really, Paul, the noise at work consultations did begin with a complete schism between live and recorded, rock and classical but that was primarily because our politicians and bureaucrats are as thick as planks. Their original plans were utterly ludicrous.

 

It ended up with a new cooperation between sectors to educate our "leaders" and research protection which was usable in the business. Live rock took a lead because the comprehension gap was enormous. It blew their minds when they started in about "noise reduction at source to zero" and we responded by saying that we were in the "noise creation business". They only really began to understand that Puccini could be just as loud as Punk when recorded measurements showed them.

 

Rock did take an initial lead but classical has more than caught up and in some areas is leading the technology, as Gridgirl Hanna can confirm. This is one area where we really are "all in this together".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I am still amazed that asking for ear plugs in venues found to be unexpectedly noisy creates real problems. Nobody can find them, although they know they have some. Add one local one where the sound man is forced to wear earplugs, despite being the one person who could solve the problem in a heartbeat, but doesn't want to!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get quite a few calls from firms asking if I have been exposed to noisy working areas, offering a no-win no-fee deal. I say yes. They get excited, until the word entertainment/music is mentioned. Then they always say they can't help and hang up. I've always wondered why?

 

I'd suggest contributory negligence. The closely supervised worker on a factory floor should be told when to wear hearing protection etc. and can try to claim if he can show hearing loss attributable to the job. The musician is a) probably self employed b) engages in many different noisy activities and c) often controls his or her own noise exposure. It's most likely a lot harder making a claim for negligence stick in such circumstances.

 

I did have one of those phone calls a while back, and genuinely missed part of the caller's opening sentence. I said, 'pardon, could you repeat that' and they hung up on me.... :-)

 

 

 

The reason I posted the link was that it seems to relate, at least as I read it, to one production of one work in one venue not an incremental effect over a period of time. It has nothing to do with the fact that I happen to think that anybody forced to listen to Wagner deserves compensation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defence under Section 1 of the 2006 Compensation Act seems like a poor one.

 

Deterrent effect of potential liability

 

A court considering a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty may, in determining whether the defendant should have taken particular steps to meet a standard of care (whether by taking precautions against a risk or otherwise), have regard to whether a requirement to take those steps might—

 

(a)prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent or in a particular way, or

 

(b)discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity.

 

I would argue that taking the necessary precautions to prevent NIHL would not have to 'prevent' the activity from being undertaken. Possibly re-arranging the seating layout of the orchestra or ensuring that appropriate hearing protection was used would not stop the orchestra from playing the music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit, I wouldn't fancy someone blowing a trumpet a couple of feet away from my lug holes.

Yet, I am usually happy to stand in front of a couple of a stacks of F1, which although loud, are often at a more constant level.

 

I think you meant...

 

 

I wouldn't fancy someone blowing a trumpet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are real people though it is surprising that someone heading up Action on Hearing Loss quotes HASAWA rather than the Noise at Work Act. I doubt they would dare use reputable people for a joke.

 

I do hope Gridgirl has the time to explain what she goes through with seating arrangements under her floating stage because that is probably the most difficult space I have ever seen to keep it legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.