Textile Companies Ruled Not Liable for Industrial Deafness
Nikki Tait,Law Courts Correspondent
While the proceedings focused on these specific cases, the judge noted that more than 700 other claims - all involving workplace ex-posure to noise levels on an average daily basis of less than 90 decibels - were riding behind them.
The workers, in the words of the judge, had mounted "a general attack in principle" on the idea that employers should be liable only if there were exposure to noise exceeding 90 decibels.
"They say that liability attaches in cases of exposure from the 1960s in the whole bracket 80-90dB(A)", said Judge Richard Inglis.
According to Health & Safety Executive guidelines, average levels of about 78-85 decibels amount to noise levels on a busy street, while 90-100 decibels is equivalent to the sound of a power drill. A heavy truck, some seven metres away, would amount to about 95-100 decibels, and a nightclub bar to about 95-105 decibels.
Afterwards, lawyers acting for Courtaulds Textiles and its insurers, said this was the first time a court had made a definitive ruling on employers' liability for any breach of "duty at lower levels of noise exposure - in particular, below 90 decibels".
"No claims for injuries relating to such low-level noise exposure have been brought before, and if the court had found in their favour, the claimants would have succeeded in changing the law on employer liability," said Julia Dodds, at Reed Smith Richards Butler.
Some of the workers involved had been employed in garment factories for years, and for much of the time never had any ear protection. They variously complained of ringing in the ears, tinnitus and hearing loss.
However, in all seven cases - although for slightly different reasons - Judge Inglis said he did not find the employers liable for noise-induced hearing loss.
In one case, for example, he found that Pretty Polly had been in breach of its duty to the employee - a Margaret Grabowski - for two years in the 1980s, but that no damage had been proved. In another case involving a different company, he decided that a former worker had sustained some noise-induced hearing loss but that her employers were not in breach of duty.