"Noise
Annoys"
by
Ben Challis, FRSA, LLB, MA(Law), MA Barrister-at-law
Music Industry Lawyer and Senior Lecturer in Law, Buckinghamshire Chilterns
University College
High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, England, UK
September, 2005
Taking for its title a classic punk
track by The Buzzcocks, this article summarises a variety of cases
around the world where noise nuisance has been ruled upon in law. The
implications of such rulings are of crucial importance to artists, promoters,
venues owners and managers.
IN the days when I still had
some hair to spike up, I really used to enjoy going to loud (very loud) rock
concerts. I remember coming home from a Ramones
concert in the
As far as I know, my hearing
did recover, but noise is a now major issue in the live music industry. Today promoters,
venues and artists need to be aware of their legal responsibilities to a number
of different people: to the audience, to their workers, and – as importantly – to
neighbours who can suffer from noise nuisance. “Noise annoys”, but it can also
damage hearing. Failure to comply with the law in respect of noise levels can
result in fines, and, in extreme cases, claims for massive damages for personal
injury and closure of venues. Yet noise can also be a lot of fun!
Most countries now have noise
regulations which set out, at a local or national level, restrictions to
prevent noise escaping from venues and annoying neighbours whose lives can be ruined
by excessive noise. In a typical case of its type, noise from a
Mid Suffolk District Council
area environmental health officers had visited a home in Debenham
at around 21.00 after receiving a complaint about the level of noise from the
Cherry Tree pub, where music was being played. There had been previous
complaints about noise from the pub, and a noise abatement order had been issued
in October 2003. The local authority had repeatedly written to the licensee
warning her that a notice was in place. The Environmental Health Officer, Eric Foxton, told the court that, in his opinion, "the level of noise was a nuisance and
it was taking away from that family the ability to enjoy their property."
Magistrates decided there had been a breach of a noise abatement notice, and
fined licensee Zoe Hearn £5,000, and ordered her to
pay prosecution costs of £3,548 after hearing evidence from Mr Foxton, and householder, John Bridges. Mr Foxton told the court that he set up noise monitoring
equipment in Mr Bridges' garden during an event at the pub in August 2002. Over
two five-minute periods, he found the noise reached up to 81 decibels and
measured around 60 decibels as a continuous sound pressure level. This roughly
equated to the noise of passing traffic when standing by the roadside, he said.
Noise came from bands and discos, and the court heard that doors and windows
were left open – exacerbating noise problems.
In a similar decision, an
appeal court in
In the
At a 2003 trial, the
Municipal Court heard from Roger Weltner, one of
three witnesses, who testified that he lived 81 feet from the Clarksburg Inn,
and endured ongoing disturbances because of loud music. Weltner
said he called police three times to complain on the night of 1st
February, 2003. Judge Debra Gelson fined the venue $1,250
with $60 in court costs for summonses issued to the restaurant by the State
Police. Millstone's anti-noise ordinance states it is "unlawful for a person to make, continue or cause to be made or
continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise." The decision was upheld on an initial appeal
to the Law Division of Monmouth County Superior Court. The State Appeals Court
confirmed this. Although the court noted that 46
In
So venues and event
organisers are becoming more closely regulated, and can be fined (and in
extreme cases venues closed down) for breaches of noise controls. This
sometimes manifests itself in somewhat unfair situations, where homes are built
by developers in close proximity to venues and clubs, creating an immediate
conflict between incoming residents and well established venues. In the
On the same issue, the State
of
Just as importantly for
promoters, artists and venues, is the liability in law for personal injury and
damage caused by excessive noise. Noise
Hangover, a research paper published in the
Recently, leading German
concert promoter, Marek Lieberberg
Konzertagentur (MLK), was ordered to pay 4,000 Euros
to a woman who claimed her hearing was damaged at a Bon Jovi
concert, back in 2000. The company also has to pay medical expenses, and loss
of future income costs, which have not as yet been quantified The Court said
that MLK had failed to take sufficient precautions to limit the volume of the
outdoor concert. The injured woman said she was standing 2.5 metres from a
speaker, and now suffered from tinnitus.
This last case contrasts to
an earlier US ruling (in 2003) which held that a promoter was not be liable for
the alleged damaged hearing of a plaintiff lawyer, who should have realised
that loud music was played at rock concerts! Manhattan Supreme Court Judge, Matrin Schoenfeld, threw out a
lawsuit from 56-year-old lawyer, Jeffrey Powell, who claimed that John Fogerty's music damaged his hearing. Judge Schoenfeld rejected the claim, stating,
"if you don't like loud music, don't
go to rock concerts", and he added that "Nobody is forced to attend rock 'n' roll concerts".
Similarly, back in the
Indeed, venue owners,
promoters, artists, and others involved in the promotion and production of live
music events, must today become fully aware of their
responsibilities, obligations and liabilities to people who work for them. In
the UK at the moment, these responsibilities are outlined in the Health and
Safety at Work Act 1974, which provides for the health, safety and security of
people at work, and, in particular, puts a responsibility on employers to
ensure (as far as is reasonably practicable), that plant and systems of work
are safe and without risk to health.
In a recent report, the
New European laws protecting
staff will be implemented in the
So even with much improved
industry practice, the spectre of increasing local, national and supra-national
regulation is ever present. Venue owners, venue managers, promoters and artists
need to be aware of their legal responsibilities: while some “noise annoys”, it
also entertains, and thus balancing safety against enjoyment now needs to be
addressed carefully. Clearly, getting it wrong could cost you a lot of money!
REFERENCES
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_042/l_04220030215en00380044.pdf
Law Updates April 2005
Law Updates February 2005
Law Updates June 2003
www.ilmc.com
(News, April 2005)
Risks Arising From Physical
Agents (Noise) Directive 2003/10/EC
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough
Council and Others (2004) Times Law
Reports
© 2005 Ben Challis