A former soldier who retired when he was not permitted to shoot or participate in some other military duties because of hearing problems was awarded more than £45,000 damages by the High Court yesterday.
It was very sad that a man who had made the Army his career was forced to abandon it because, due to his hearing problems, he was assigned to duties very different from those a soldier might expect, Mr Justice O'Donovan said.
Mr Peter Flood (46), a father of three, of Swords, Co Dublin, had spent 21 years in the Army until his retirement last July.
In his action for hearing loss against the Minister for Defence and the State, Mr Flood was yesterday awarded damages of £45,730 and costs.
The award included the cost of hearing aids and £10,000 for loss of quality of life.
Mr Justice O'Donovan said Mr Flood had stated in undisputed evidence he had retired because of ongoing problems with his hearing, as a result of which he was not permitted to shoot or to participate in a range of military duties to the extent that he no longer felt he was a soldier.
The judge said he accepted evidence from Mr Flood that in the months prior to leaving the Army he was assigned very menial work which had nothing to do with being a soldier.
Mr Justice O'Donovan said it was common case that during his period of Army service and up to when he was forbidden to participate in range practice in 1994, he had been exposed to gunfire noise from a variety of weaponry and that, although the noise was excessive, he was never provided with adequate hearing protection.
As a result of that exposure he complained he had suffered a noise-induced hearing loss and tinnitus for which he was claiming damages.
Mr Flood had stated that from the very beginning of his Army service, he noticed that after a period on the rifle range he would experience ringing in his ears which persisted for a few hours and went away.
By 1994 that ringing "was and still is a constant companion." It was worse at night and affected his sleep.
The judge said Mr Flood had given evidence that from 1994 onwards, his wife had been "roaring" at him to attract his attention. She complained he had the TV on too loud and had also said her friends considered him to be an ignorant man because he appeared to ignore them.
He had said that if he ignored his wife's friends, it was because he could not hear them and he was embarrassed on that account. He also said he noticed that he kept saying "What?" when people spoke to him. He had problems conversing with passengers in a hackney car he had driven after leaving the Army.
Mr Justice O'Donovan said he was satisfied from medical evidence that the use of a hearing aid would be very beneficial to Mr Flood. He also accepted the former soldier's own evidence that if and when he could afford to do so, he would buy such an aid.
It appeared the capital cost of buying an appropriate aid was £1,000 per year. The average hearing aid would have a life span of five years and the annual cost of servicing and buying batteries was £125.
The judge calculated the annual cost of buying, servicing and supplying a hearing aid with batteries at £525, or £10 per week. He said he had also been advised that the capital value loss of £1 per week for Mr Flood for the rest of his life was £1,300. He would allow Mr Flood £13,000 in respect of the cost of buying, replacing, servicing and providing for batteries for his hearing aid for the rest of his life.