A Co Limerick man who served with the Army for three years during the 1970s and claimed he suffered noise-induced hearing loss and tinnitus from exposure to gunfire lost his action for damages in the High Court yesterday.
Mr Justice O'Donovan said he was not satisfied that Mr Neilus Simcox (42), who is now unemployed and looks after his elderly mother, had established his case.
The judge dismissed the action against the Minister for Defence and the State with costs, but put a stay on his order in the event of an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Mr Simcox, from Garryfine, Bruree, Co Limerick, enlisted in the Army in 1975 and was a serving soldier for three years. It was not suggested that Mr Simcox suffered from any illness which might have had a detrimental effect on his hearing, the judge said.
It was common case that during his Army service Mr Simcox was exposed to noise of gunfire from a variety of weapons, including heavy artillery. Mr Justice O'Donovan said that although he was satisfied that the noise was excessive, Mr Simcox was never given protection for his hearing.
A consultant ENT surgeon who had examined Mr Simcox on behalf of the defence and who testified he was suffering from a high tone hearing loss had conceded that the noise of weaponry, to which Mr Simcox had been exposed, may have had some impact on that loss.
However, the defence maintained that whatever loss of hearing Mr Simcox suffered from, it was neither caused nor contributed to by exposure to noise of weaponry during his Army service to the extent that he was entitled to compensation. The defence also maintained the tinnitus was not legally susceptible to compensation.
After his discharge from the Army, Mr Simcox had said he noticed, when attending hurling matches, that he would experience a ringing in his ears from the noise of the crowd, which lasted about 30 seconds. In the late 1990s his mother had regularly complained that he played the TV too loud.
Mr Simcox also said that some time later he had a problem conversing with his mother, although he did not have that experience when talking to other people.
Mr Justice O'Donovan said that, in the absence of evidence that there was anything unusual about the mother's speech or diction, he found it difficult to understand why the plaintiff would have any difficulty conversing with her.
The judge said he was not convinced that the hearing loss demonstrated in the audiogram tests was noise-induced or, if it was, that it was induced by any exposure to gunfire noise during his Army service.