Rights against a consumer..

Flyboy152

Tygermoth wrote: »

The route would be vis the empolyer.

I was involved in anasty accident at work. NOT the fault of the company i worked for but a contractor on site.

COSH and H&SE were involved and i was advised to claim from my empolyer as they had the overiding resposibility for me while at work and insurance to cover these matters. My employers (who i had only been working for a week or so) were fine, they didnt care as it was not them that had to pay out... was the insurance.

They then took the third party to court to cover the losses. (which i belive were not recouped as the contactor just bankruped himself to get out of paying) But as my emplyers said... thats what the insurance is for.

However this being said i do thing the level of noise transmitted would not have confirmed perm hearing loss as perv posters have stated. This would need to be looked into.

(please excuse my spelling today word is not working and being severely dyslexic i normaly only post after typing in word, spell checking and then pasting in..so sorry)

Not to worry, but I did wonder about being called a "perv poster." I wondered who you had been talking to.

A tip for the future though, if you are using google toolbar, there is a spell-checker built in. If you are using IE, there is also a spell-checker included in the "reply to thread" tool. It is in the top right hand corner of the box, it has a small ABC and a tick.

pendulum

Am I the only one who thinks this story is complete BS?

Headphones contain small speakers which are limited as to how loud they can possibly be. Plus, exposure to a loud noise for a small time isn't going to cause any permanent damage unless that noise is incredibly loud.
Think about this; the guy who let the airhorn off would've been right next to it also, and I doubt he's suffered. People let airhorns off a few inches from peoples ears at football stadiums or at least they used to. Letting one off over the phone is an annoyance and possibly an attempt to make someone feel uncomfortable, but I highly doubt it could cause any actual harm.

Here are some sound levels with its corresponding amount of maximum time allowed to hear. (according to EPA)
8 hours = 85 dBA
4 hours = 90 dBA
2 hours = 95 dBA
1 hours = 100 dBA
30 minutes = 105 dBA
15 minutes = 110 dBA

Valli

arcon5 wrote: »

Nonsense. If I attack somebody in a bar there's no contractual relationship -- i'd still be arrested and dragged through the courts. This is a personal injury case, no contract needs exist. This has nothing to do with contract law, somebody has suffered a permanent injury as a result of this individuals actions.



You may be able to go after the employer as others suggest.. in the meantime she better start finding alternate employment as i'm betting she won't last long in the workplace

Of course it's to do with contract (and employment) law - because the person was an employee carrying out contracted duties at the time of the incident.

mattyprice4004

Having worked in a call centre for years, I'm calling BS also.

For some Sennheiser DJ headphones, the maximum SPL is quoted as 120db, a call centre earpiece is obviously capable of much less.

http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/home_en.nsf/root/private_headphones_dj-headphones-hd-25-1-ii

MeanParent

melbell wrote: »

(Asking this on behalf of a friend)

My friend works in a call centre. Customer services, She has had an air horn blasted down the phone at her because the customer was not happy in receiving a charge or similar.

She cannot hear in one of her ears.

Now can she take action against the company/customer?

Yes it is assault. Go to the police and report it. They won't take it seriously but pressure them to.

arcon5

Valli wrote: »

Of course it's to do with contract (and employment) law - because the person was an employee carrying out contracted duties at the time of the incident.

There is a contract between employer and employer, yes. And a contract between employer and customer. However, simply because there isn't a contract between employee and customer doesn't mean op doesn't have grounds to pursue the person for the injury. There doesn't need to be a contract in place between two parties for this. To suggest the "customer is not liable" simply because of this is crazy! It was this person who caused the damage and is wholely liable for it.

Flyboy152

Valli wrote: »

this is spot on

the employer has a duty to provide safe working conditions for employees; moreover it is reasonably forseeable that this type of event may occur therefore the employer should be ensuring the health and safety of employers using appriate technology eg sound limiters.

As there is no contractual relationship between the employee (your friend) and the customer the customer is not liable; the employer, however is.

Union?

and, as DOUGLAS (rough username) says in post 10 the technology is there...

Have to disagree with Arcon on this one - it's all down to contractual relationship IMO - it really is up to the employer to use all the avauilable technology to protect employees!

I'll remember that the next time I run into someone from behind. I can cite your judgement that as I do not have any contractual arrangement with the other driver, I don't have to pay for any damage and seeing as my insurers have no contract with the other party, they don't have to pay either, thereby saving any no claims discount. In fact, it could be argued that I don't need any insurance and the whole legal bit about having any is pointless. :wall:

Flyboy152

arcon5 wrote: »

There is a contract between employer and employer, yes. And a contract between employer and customer. However, simply because there isn't a contract between employee and customer doesn't mean op doesn't have grounds to pursue the person for the injury. There doesn't need to be a contract in place between two parties for this. To suggest the "customer is not liable" simply because of this is crazy! It was this person who caused the damage and is wholely liable for it.

I think there may be a case for "joint" liability. The customer is liable for his actions, but the employer has a duty of care towards their employee to protect them from such customers. If it is found that the employer was negligent in doing this, they could also be considered to be at fault.

unholyangel

arcon5 wrote: »

Nonsense. If I attack somebody in a bar there's no contractual relationship -- i'd still be arrested and dragged through the courts. This is a personal injury case, no contract needs exist. This has nothing to do with contract law, somebody has suffered a permanent injury as a result of this individuals actions.



You may be able to go after the employer as others suggest.. in the meantime she better start finding alternate employment as i'm betting she won't last long in the workplace

Yes but the employer would also be liable as they failed to take the necessary precautions in what could be perceived as a probable health and safety risk. Employers have insurance. I dont think Valli was saying the employer would be liable for the criminal side of things, merely that they have failed in their contractual obligations to provide a safe working environment.

Aside from that, if you report such a thing, an employer would be incredibly stupid to fire you for reporting it without a) having justifiable grounds to dismiss you and/or b) consulting with a solicitor first.

Valli

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I'll remember that the next time I run into someone from behind. I can cite your judgement that as I do not have any contractual arrangement with the other driver, I don't have to pay for any damage and seeing as my insurers have no contract with the other party, they don't have to pay either, thereby saving any no claims discount. In fact, it could be argued that I don't need any insurance and the whole legal bit about having any is pointless. :wall:

Not the same thing at all and you know it! An employer has to provide safe working conditions and has a duty of care to his employee when he/she is carrying out contracted duties.
This was an 'accident' at work. The employee can get redress for loss suffered (eg if unable to work) from the employer.

However the person who commmitted the assault can be charged with, say, ABH, as a criminal act. That would be the job of the police.

Thanks Unholy Angel you got my point!