Flood v Min for Defence

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Diarmuid B. O'Donovan
• Judgment Date: 16 November 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] IEHC 163
• Docket Number: No. 7690P/1994
• Court: High Court
• Date: 16 November 1998

[1998] IEHC 163

THE HIGH COURT

No. 7690P/1994

FLOOD v. MIN FOR DEFENCE

BETWEEN

PETER FLOOD

PLAINTIFF

AND

THE MINISTER FOR DEFENCE, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

CIVIL LIABILITY (ASSESSMENT OF HEARING INJURY) ACT 1998

HANLEY V MIN FOR DEFENCE UNREP JOHNSON 21.7.1998

BASTICK V MIN FOR DEFENCE UNREP BARRON 24.11.1995

Synopsis

Damages

Army; hearing disability; noise induced hearing loss; assessment of damages; whether formula set out in Green Book is fair and adequate means of measuring disability from hearing loss; whether effect of hearing loss on victim's quality of life should be considered; measuring compensation per degree of established disability Held: Green Book is fair and adequate means of measuring disability for hearing loss; damages awarded for current and future hearing disability, tinnitus and for loss of quality of life (High Court: O'Donovan J. 16/11/1998)

Flood v. The Minister for Defence

The formula for assessing hearing loss in the Green Book is a fair and adequate means of measuring disability for hearing loss and should be followed by the courts unless there are good reasons for not so doing. The High Court so held in giving judgment in the amount of £45,730 for the plaintiff.

Mr. Justice Diarmuid B. O'Donovan

1 This Plaintiff is a 46 year old married man with three children who resides at Swords in the County Dublin. He enlisted in the Irish Army in the year 1977 and was a serving soldier until the month of July of this year when he retired from the Army on the grounds, as he said in evidence and it was not disputed by the Defence, that, on account of ongoing problems with his hearing, he was not permitted to shoot or to participate in a range of military duties to the extent that he no longer felt that he was a soldier. Indeed, he told me and I accept that, in the months prior to his leaving the Army, he was assigned very menial work which had nothing to do with being a soldier.

2 It is common case that, during his period of service in the Army and up to the time that he was forbidden to participate in range practice in the year 1994, the Plaintiff had been exposed to the noise of gunfire from a variety of weaponry and that, although that noise was excessive, he was never provided with any adequate protection for his hearing. As a result of that exposure, Mr. Flood complains that he has suffered a noise-induced hearing loss and tinnitus in respect of which he comes before the Court claiming damages. In this connection, Mr. Flood said that, from the very beginning of his Army service, he noticed that, after a period on the rifle range, he would experience a ringing in his ears which persisted for a few hours and then went away. However, by the year 1994, that ringing in his ears was and still is a constant companion and that it is worse during the quiet of night to the extent that it affects his sleep pattern. In addition, Mr. Flood gave evidence that, from 1994 onwards, his wife has been roaring at him in order to attract his attention, that she complains that he plays the television too loud and also that her friends consider him to be an ignorant man because he appears to ignore them. He said that, if he ignored his wife's friends, it was because he could not hear them and he is embarrassed on that account. He also said that he notices that he keeps saying "what" when people speak to him and that he had particular problems conversing with passengers in a hackney car, which he took up driving after he left the Army. In this regard, he said that he was unable to converse with passengers, if there was a radio on in his car, and that he also had problems conversing in crowded situations, such as a public house, and that he had problems at home hearing the doorbell and the telephone. He said that his hearing problems has got progressively worse over the years and that his wife and children were complaining more and more with the passage of time. As he put it, "we do not talk to each other at home, we all roar in our house". Under cross-examination, it was suggested to Mr. Flood that, in the light of the results of several audiogram tests which he had undergone in recent years, it was clear that he was exaggerating his hearing problems and, in particular, Counsel for the Defence, Mr. Ryan, pointed out to him that even though he (Mr. Ryan) was speaking in a very low voice, the Plaintiff did not appear to have any difficulty in hearing him. Mr. Flood countered by saying that he was able to lip read. In this regard, however, the Plaintiff did not appear to have any difficulty in hearing what I said to him, even though I spoke in a low voice and was not facing him so that he could not have been reading my lips. Accordingly, I am inclined to think that he was, indeed, exaggerating his hearing problems. That as it may be, however, I do not for a minute doubt but that he does suffer from tinnitus and that he does experience hearing problems of the type described by him although not, perhaps, to the extent...