TexasCHLforum.com

McALLEN — A local judge claims in a federal lawsuit that a trip to the shooting range more than two years ago left him with substantial permanent hearing loss.

http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/ar ... 6b3d9.html

Democrat...big surprise.

65% permanent hearing loss from a single trip to the gun range where he was using ear plugs? Something doesn't add up here.

Unlike filing frivolous lawsuits in state court, doing so in federal court is a very big mistake. It's also one that can be quite costly.

Chas.

I personally had a problem with Honeywell and their ear protection devices, for me they were worthless but I got rid of them without a lawsuit. Deep pockets will be Honeywell so that is where it will all go. I am sure the judge has an expert witness that will claim that the amount of hearing loss could be from a single session. With a rifle blasting away with only ear plugs (which may not be pushed in right) who knows. Also, was it outdoors, under an enclosure, or indoors can make a big difference. One never knows what will happen at a trial, it is justice I guess but it may not be.

3M/Honeywell will have their experts testify that the product was designed for XXdb of attenuation and if instructions were followed and noise levels for the product were not exceeded, then they would perform as designed. If the Judge experienced any damage he was either exceeded noise levels, used them improperly, or both.

I once stood at the wrong angle to an 8 inch howitzer as it fired. It literally knocked me onto my behind. That definitely taught me a lesson, but it never occurred to me that I should sue anyone.

I am no expert, but if the sound was loud enough to cause that level of permanent hearing loss, wouldn't it also have been noticeably unpleasant such that a rational person would remove themselves from the location?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I once stood at the wrong angle to an 8 inch howitzer as it fired. It literally knocked me onto my behind. That definitely taught me a lesson, but it never occurred to me that I should sue anyone.

I am no expert, but if the sound was loud enough to cause that level of permanent hearing loss, wouldn't it also have been noticeably unpleasant such that a rational person would remove themselves from the location?

The fault in your argument is the assumption that a democrat judge would (A) behave in a reasonable manner; and (B) would accept at least part of the consequences if he failed to do so.

I don't see what his gripe is. The ear plugs actually over performed reducing the noise level by 65%. Case closed.

rotor wrote:I personally had a problem with Honeywell and their ear protection devices, for me they were worthless but I got rid of them without a lawsuit. Deep pockets will be Honeywell so that is where it will all go. I am sure the judge has an expert witness that will claim that the amount of hearing loss could be from a single session. With a rifle blasting away with only ear plugs (which may not be pushed in right) who knows. Also, was it outdoors, under an enclosure, or indoors can make a big difference. One never knows what will happen at a trial, it is justice I guess but it may not be.

The location in question is an indoor range. 14 lanes. I believe they restrict rifles to the last 3 lanes by the far wall (12-14).
http://pointblanksg.com/firearms-range/

I think he is going to have to prove that 1) he did no other activities in same time frame that could contribute to hearing loss, and 2) that he lost the hearing at that time. I really doubt he has hearing tests bracketing that day to prove it was based on that one event. I also wonder if range offered him ear muffs when he arrived.

He only shot one box of ammo. So that tells me he was in there less than an hour. I really can't see that much permanent hearing loss happening even if he didn't wear ear plugs. I am doubtful of his claims.

I think he may win his case.
Check this out. https://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Rec ... -Exposure/

"People who do not wear hearing protection while shooting can suffer a severe hearing loss with as little as one shot, if the conditions are right. Audiologists see this often, especially during hunting season when hunters and bystanders may be exposed to rapid fire from big-bore rifles, shotguns, or pistols. "

All he needs to claim is that the ear plugs did not adequately protect him and/or the instructions were insufficient. If you go to Honeywell website there are no instructions on how to use their earplugs.

I am sure the plaintiff has already lined up a good expert witness.

A case like this was brought a few years ago against an indoor range in League City. If you scroll to the portion of this page stamped 05/10/13--11:33, you can see that the shooting range prevailed in the litigation.

http://southeast586.rssing.com/chan-108 ... ll_p6.html

rotor wrote:I think he may win his case.
Check this out. https://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Rec ... -Exposure/

"People who do not wear hearing protection while shooting can suffer a severe hearing loss with as little as one shot, if the conditions are right. Audiologists see this often, especially during hunting season when hunters and bystanders may be exposed to rapid fire from big-bore rifles, shotguns, or pistols. "

All he needs to claim is that the ear plugs did not adequately protect him and/or the instructions were insufficient. If you go to Honeywell website there are no instructions on how to use their earplugs.

I am sure the plaintiff has already lined up a good expert witness.

"Firearms are loud" says a PhD. Well, duh. What kind of hunters are doing rapid fire with bystanders around?
"People who do not wear hearing protection while shooting can suffer a severe hearing loss with as little as one shot." What? If so then why does this helpful hint make sense? "Choose single-shot firearms instead of lever action, pump, or semi-automatic guns."

This guy sounds like a typical anti-gun liberal academic. Bet he's never held a job outside academia.

bblhd672 wrote:

rotor wrote:I think he may win his case.
Check this out. https://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Rec ... -Exposure/

"People who do not wear hearing protection while shooting can suffer a severe hearing loss with as little as one shot, if the conditions are right. Audiologists see this often, especially during hunting season when hunters and bystanders may be exposed to rapid fire from big-bore rifles, shotguns, or pistols. "

All he needs to claim is that the ear plugs did not adequately protect him and/or the instructions were insufficient. If you go to Honeywell website there are no instructions on how to use their earplugs.

I am sure the plaintiff has already lined up a good expert witness.

"Firearms are loud" says a PhD. Well, duh. What kind of hunters are doing rapid fire with bystanders around?
"People who do not wear hearing protection while shooting can suffer a severe hearing loss with as little as one shot." What? If so then why does this helpful hint make sense? "Choose single-shot firearms instead of lever action, pump, or semi-automatic guns."

This guy sounds like a typical anti-gun liberal academic. Bet he's never held a job outside academia.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the report, just that there will probably not take very much to find an expert witness to convince a jury that the hearing loss was caused by a defective product or bad instructions. I think Honeywell will be the target here as they have the deep pockets. They claim that they have the best hearing protection product available. They may have a hard time proving it. Jury trials are not necessarily based on reality but on emotion. If there is a website or expert witness and the jury buys it than they will find for the plaintiff. Happens all the time in the medical world. Johnson and Johnson $60plus million suits for ovarian cancer and baby powder. Plenty of examples.