Concert Sound Level Too High says Court.

[Brian]

Interesting article.

[MarkPAman]

Translated!

[Just Some Bloke]

I'll certainly be very careful not to 'overstimulate the volume', having read that translation!

[sleah]

This would be great if it were in English Law:

Also a DJ or a sound engineer can be held partly responsible, for example. If he violates his duty of disclosure to the organizer (because he realizes that the organizer does not care about the subject) or he himself for the overstimulation of the volume (co-) responsible for.

Even as someone who used to DJ regularly with pretty loud soundsystems, I would welcome this!

[Stuart91]

The interesting thing I took from it was that, since none of the defendants had taken noise level readings during the event, the burden of proof was on them to show that they hadn't exceeded safe levels. They couldn't, so the case went against them.

 

Whilst I'm not in favour of stupidly high sound levels, if this ruling translates in UK law, we could find ourselves having to keep calibrated records of the noise levels throughout every event, or run the risk of someone popping up months or years later and saying "I got Tinnitus, write me a cheque".

 

How can anyone prove that the complainants tinnitus was caused by that one event, and not all the other concerts they have attended over the years, or using an iPod for 8hrs every day?

[p.k.roberts]

I'm struggling to understand the legal stuff here; I was under the impression that H&S law was harmonised across the EU however, according to this page at the HSE;

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/event-safety/noise.htm

 

"Unlike workers, there is no specific legislation setting noise limits for the audience exposure to noise", but there again, this seems at odds with the HSAW Act which provides a duty of care to those at work or who are affected by work

 

I remain vexed.

[Stuart91]

a duty of care to those at work or who are affected by work

 

Does that mean that if you are going to use a pneumatic drill on a road, you need have ear protection on hand for passers-by?

[Just Some Bloke]

Speaking as a potential passer-by, if in the time it takes me to pass by you are going to damage my hearing then yes I'd like protection. However, I would imagine cordoning off a safe zone in which I couldn't pass by might be a lot easier for you. :)

[Stuart91]

However, I would imagine cordoning off a safe zone in which I couldn't pass by might be a lot easier for you. :)

 

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but it would be interesting to watch someone defend themselves against an ambulance chasing lawyer who is claiming that the safe zone wasn't big enough and their client suffered tinnitus as a result.

 

(It's exactly the same line of argument that would be trotted out against venues too. Even if there's a meter indicating safe levels in one part of a club, you can be someone will be willing to claim that it wasn't safe in the spot that they ended up in)

[Brian]

I remain vexed.

 

There is no specific legislation which says that you mustn't drop a brick on a passer-by's head from a building site but you'll still get prosecuted if you do.

 

Does that mean that if you are going to use a pneumatic drill on a road, you need have ear protection on hand for passers-by?

 

No, but you need a risk assessment which shows that the peak and average levels they are exposed to will not damage their hearing.

[p.k.roberts]

I remain vexed.

 

There is no specific legislation which says that you mustn't drop a brick on a passer-by's head from a building site but you'll still get prosecuted if you do.

 

 

Whilst I would agree that there is no specific brick-dropping legislation, I would argue that that would be covered by the HSAW duty of care to those affected by a work activity. My vexation really was caused by the apparent disparity between the HSE advice about concert goers, but the seeming inclusion of those concert goers in the HSAW.

 

Still vexed.

[Stuart91]

No, but you need a risk assessment which shows that the peak and average levels they are exposed to will not damage their hearing.

 

That certainly makes sense, but again I can't imagine the average road-mending crew coming up with a site-specific RA for every job. And sooner or later a lawyer will realise this, and go after the companies involved.

 

The question here is not really whether the activity poses any danger, but whether you can prove that it doesn't. From what see from article that started this thread, the onus was put on the venue to prove they weren't causing danger, the claimants don't seem to have been asked to prove that their hearing damage was caused by the venue. That worries me, because anyone with money could find themselves defending against endless vexatious court actions, with very few options for defending themselves.

[Brian]

... I can't imagine the average road-mending crew coming up with a site-specific RA for every job....

 

But head office will likely have one as a generic RA. Whilst loud, even at close range, there's not going to be any permanent damage as the exposure time is so short. And when things are loud and they hurt we move away. Which is what any good defence lawyer would focus on.

 

Concerts are different as people are likely to have consumed alcohol or taken drugs which will alter their risk perception.

[paulears]

Doesn't the current system require that workers need protection but the audience have exercised their own mind to be there, and can of course leave if it's too loud? I've never heard our current legislation applied to the audience? Did I miss something here?

[Whiskers]

There are strong recommendations

http://www.hse.gov.uk/event-safety/noise.htm

 

A lawyer would argue that a venue has a duty of care to the audience who are not walking dB meters, how can they make an informed choice?

 

Note also above "may have taken . . . . ."

 

that duty also would extend to PA companies, DJs, FOH sound persons and who knows who else

 

But damage is cumulative and may take years to develop, so when the case comes to court in ten years

 

it will be the venue that is still there. PA companies and managements morph and vanish over time

 

Do you know who provided PA, and who mixed for XYZ and the Groovers at your venue in FEB 2006 ?

 

Worst case nightmare example scenario

 

"I went to a band and disco in the SU every Friday & Saturday for three years at uni now I am stone deaf"

 

"my client is well educated and now has 90% hearing loss and unable to find employment*, we are suing the SU for 2.2M loss

 

of earnings over the next 45 years and a further 1.6M for loss of amenity* "

 

 

Warning notices should be displayed stating max SPL and that exposure may cause damage,

 

That venues should monitor and enforce that level, and that venues should demonstrate due

 

diligence by recording the values at each gig. But never again those bluddy traffic light power cut gizmos!

 

 

Slightly more seriously perhaps FOH sound persons should have regular hearing tests, if Mr Fader's

 

hearing is - 12 dB then his 107 dB(A) might be 119 dB(A) -

 

This could be a good can of worms, lose your hearing and you lose your FOH licence - that might make them

 

a bit quieter.

 

 

* this is a hypothetical lawyer speaking, no slight intended on anyone with hearing difficulties, great example

 

that the second lawyer would quote Dame Evelyn Glennie and there are plenty more!