Junior8

I wonder how this case is progressing. It was brought back to mind because my colleagues and I had a long chat with the audiologist who does all our hearing tests and fitted earplugs this week - we've been sending people to him for ages but had never actually met the guy. Turns out he's a death metal drummer when he's not being an audiologist! Anyway, we discussed this claim and he reckons that without a baseline hearing test from when the player started at the ROH, it would be very unlikely that the damage can be pinned on them. And even then, if the workplace had issued him with earplugs and a directive to use them, they have done all they can. I'm sitting in the orchestra "pit" currently (we're actually out of the pit and in a studio - singers are on the front steps of the building!) and noticed one player has tissue paper wadded up in his ears. I KNOW he has proper fitted earplugs because I sent him the referral to get them, but I can't force him to wear them. And wadded up tissue paper isn't going to do a damn thing for his hearing.

 

Nothing has appeared recently

Is the date a coincidence? :unsure: Odd if it isn't.... :blink:

 

 

It is now being reported more widely including here with details of the ROH's defence http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/01/musician-sues-royal-opera-house-loss-hearing-chris-goldscheider

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...

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

I actually laughed at seeing the photos of that one. Some people do deserve all that happens to them!

 

Yes but what about the innocent bystander?

It makes you realize just how good most of the time the regulators are here in publishing findings speedily and in full. After finding a mention of the verdict on-line I spent a lot of time last week searching the Min of Lab website assuming that there would at least be a press release. Nothing as far as I could see.

 

It'd be interesting to see some wind tunnel tests on TDSs I think.

Take the issue of the concrete ground anchors as an example. Someone must have decided that the weight of the ground anchors combined were sufficiently heavy to withstand the lateral force generated by the wind. And someone else might have agreed with them. They were wrong, not because they wanted to be wrong, but because they were confident the weight they had decided/calculated/estimated was sufficient. As above I put this down to their training/education, or their less than complete understanding of the possible forces generated by the wind.

 

Interesting. During the vile weather of two weeks ago Mrs J8, was selling at a prestigious event where no staking was possible. The tentage, anchored by blocks and ratchet straps was supplied by a local firm. By the end of the four days the entire paved surface was pitted and chipped from the repeated impact of the concrete 'anchors' being lifted up by the wind and crashing down again. Now nothing actually blew down but that was, IMHO, only luck.

 

The question is will the organizers note this? Will the contractor - or will they simply sigh with relief that they got away with it? Or will the whole bang shoot simply go back into store and be hired out again to somewhere not surrounded by buildings to give some shelter?

Let's get to the nub. This is the latest in a number of such incidents involving different types of construction and circumstances. Now this could be merely happenstance or something rather more statistically relevant. I don't know. If I was an artist though I might well take Jim Digby's suggestion seriously.

 

For me though the most interesting comment made on Monday was from a Canadian Ministry of Labour spokesman who said: "We still haven't determined who owns the stage. So all of the orders regarding the stage are being given to Live Nation. ... They're in charge of the whole shebang, right?" Well they might be who knows - as brony pointed out there is already buck passing going on. (Edit - I wasn't going to name the firms involved but soemone already has.They are in the link.)

 

Now it surely beggars belief that in the case of a serious incident like this an official body can't apparently get a simple answer to a simple question - who owns the stage -from a multi-national concert promoting company.

 

I know this industry is increasingly fragmented but surely not to that extent?

Just because you work underneath stage roofs it doesn't give you the right to speculate who's to blame when one collapses.

 

Well I work regulartaly under all sorts of temporary structures and nothing said here is going to stop me speculating - even if I don't write down what I'm thinking.

 

This may be a tragedy but that shouldn't stop debate about it.

There is a good set of pictures on the Toronto Star website. By the looks of it this was a scaff structure and the accident was a result of the failure of one side of the roof - formed of standard scaff trusses - where it joined the side supporting framework. I can't help feeling if people continue to hang eveything these incidents are going to keep happening.