Concert Sound Level Too High says Court.

[p.k.roberts]

 

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.

 

That sort of always has been the case - the HSAW provides for 'reverse burden' of proof; "it shall be for the accused to prove (as the case may be) that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement." (section 40), so in other words you are presumed guilty unless you can prove you are innocent.

[Stuart91]

That sort of always has been the case - the HSAW provides for 'reverse burden' of proof;

 

That's fine from the point of view of a prosecution under the HSAW act, where presumably there has either been a reportable accident or an inspector has witnessed something serious.

 

However the case in the article seems to be random punters coming forward to claim they were damaged, it's then up to the venue to prove that they didn't. There are established ways of determining whether someone has hearing loss, but how can a court decide whether it was caused by a club night that they attended at some point in the past, or any other source?

[kerry davies]

First off we have to forget the criminal law of HASAWA, this is a civil case. Beyond reasonable doubt applies to criminal cases, more likely than not applies to civil ones.

how can a court decide whether it was caused by a club night that they attended

That is where the lower "burden of proof" in civil cases comes in. The plaintiff claims to have suffered harm caused by the club. The club then needs to prove it has "taken all reasonable measures to prevent harm". This case hangs on the club pleading ignorance and taking no measures; "we don't know nothing and leave it to the DJ". That is equivalent to pleading guilty especially as they appear never to have given the DJ any instruction on noise levels.

 

The judge in civil cases sets damages, not fines as in criminal cases, using proportionality. Looking at the low level of the awards, I would guess that the judge reckoned the plaintiffs were partly or greatly responsible themselves. Be interesting to know if the claimants made anything, after costs. I doubt it.

 

The bottom line as far as most of us are concerned is that we in the UK are way ahead of operators like this club. We know about NIHL and take steps to minimise risk. We place barriers in front of big PAs and/or hang them. We measure levels at FoH and at site perimeters. We have the good practice of the HSE to guide us. Europe doesn't. UK event technical staffs are among the best in the world and our event safety staffs are world leaders. The lesson we can take from this is that we cannot allow our standards to slip. Staying ahead of the game takes effort.

[paulears]

Tonight I have to attend a venue as a punter, I've had the invitation, and saying no would be a problem. However, it's the one with a young guy operating a meaty pa in a small room and he wears earplugs because it's so loud. I'm taking my own ear plugs this time.

 

Maybe like motor racing we will have to start overprinting tickets with health warnings?

[Simon Lewis]

Just had a quick look at this...

 

I do not know if things have changed since this article was published in 2008, but it seems that DIN 15905-5 is voluntary and that for the Bavarian discos which were monitored, few kept to the recommended level (102dB LAeq 1hr) even after being given sound pressure level meters and having had training sessions on noise levels and their effect.

 

102dB anywhere in the venue isn't too far from the UK Purple Book recommendation of a maximum event Leq of 105dB. I do not know if German law on negligence mirrors that of the UK, but as Kerry highlights a negligence case typically has to show that:

 

a) a legal duty of care was owed, b) the defendant breached that duty of care and c) the defendant's negligence actually caused the plaintiff's injury. If those tests are passed, then the court may award compensation to the plaintiff for his or her injury - usually financially.

There are some defences too - contributory negligence, non fit injuria volenti etc., so that's where having some sound pressure level readings would be useful (although a good lawyer might well be able to cast doubt on these unless the equipment and the person using them could be shown to be competent).

 

There was a case some years back where a father collecting his daughter from an event held in a marquee walked past an external loudspeaker and claimed it gave him hearing damage. It went to court, and the defence brought in Peter Mapp as an expert. He spent a few minutes explaining that for the exposure time experienced, a single Bose 802 loudspeaker was not capable of generating the required sound pressure level to cause instant damage. The negligence case was dismissed.