Junior8

I'd suggest contributory negligence. The closely supervised worker on a factory floor should be told when to wear hearing protection etc. and can try to claim if he can show hearing loss attributable to the job. The musician is a) probably self employed b) engages in many different noisy activities and c) often controls his or her own noise exposure. It's most likely a lot harder making a claim for negligence stick in such circumstances. I did have one of those phone calls a while back, and genuinely missed part of the caller's opening sentence. I said, 'pardon, could you repeat that' and they hung up on me.... :-) The reason I posted the link was that it seems to relate, at least as I read it, to one production of one work in one venue not an incremental effect over a period of time. It has nothing to do with the fact that I happen to think that anybody forced to listen to Wagner deserves compensation...

A number of interesting implications here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35938704

Yes but what about the innocent bystander?

It makes you realize just how good most of the time the regulators are here in publishing findings speedily and in full. After finding a mention of the verdict on-line I spent a lot of time last week searching the Min of Lab website assuming that there would at least be a press release. Nothing as far as I could see. It'd be interesting to see some wind tunnel tests on TDSs I think.

Interesting. During the vile weather of two weeks ago Mrs J8, was selling at a prestigious event where no staking was possible. The tentage, anchored by blocks and ratchet straps was supplied by a local firm. By the end of the four days the entire paved surface was pitted and chipped from the repeated impact of the concrete 'anchors' being lifted up by the wind and crashing down again. Now nothing actually blew down but that was, IMHO, only luck. The question is will the organizers note this? Will the contractor - or will they simply sigh with relief that they got away with it? Or will the whole bang shoot simply go back into store and be hired out again to somewhere not surrounded by buildings to give some shelter?

Let's get to the nub. This is the latest in a number of such incidents involving different types of construction and circumstances. Now this could be merely happenstance or something rather more statistically relevant. I don't know. If I was an artist though I might well take Jim Digby's suggestion seriously. For me though the most interesting comment made on Monday was from a Canadian Ministry of Labour spokesman who said: "We still haven't determined who owns the stage. So all of the orders regarding the stage are being given to Live Nation. ... They're in charge of the whole shebang, right?" Well they might be who knows - as brony pointed out there is already buck passing going on. (Edit - I wasn't going to name the firms involved but soemone already has.They are in the link.) Now it surely beggars belief that in the case of a serious incident like this an official body can't apparently get a simple answer to a simple question - who owns the stage -from a multi-national concert promoting company. I know this industry is increasingly fragmented but surely not to that extent?

Well I work regulartaly under all sorts of temporary structures and nothing said here is going to stop me speculating - even if I don't write down what I'm thinking. This may be a tragedy but that shouldn't stop debate about it.

There is a good set of pictures on the Toronto Star website. By the looks of it this was a scaff structure and the accident was a result of the failure of one side of the roof - formed of standard scaff trusses - where it joined the side supporting framework. I can't help feeling if people continue to hang eveything these incidents are going to keep happening.