So I just got a rider.....

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Craigv The spec would only be valuable as evidence if it specifically stated intent. "System will be used at 125dB continuously at FOH for four hours, so it should be capable of cruising at this level" would imply intent. What was written does not. Any defense lawyer worth his Tag Heuer could crush this angle in a heartbeat.

Someone who understands me.

For Robopimp - Here's one of many listings of typical sound pressure levels.

[Axisplayer]

In spite of everything said here, I did respond to the promoter, and told him how ridiculous the rider was. He spoke to the tour manager who asked what I would suggest. I wrote a lengthy response, item by item, to the rider with "what he asked for" vs "what I would bring."

The promoter called back and said the TM seemed OK with my system, and realized this was only a club (the band has sold out Madison Square Garden twice.) He said it sounded like I knew my system well, and thought I could make it work for them. Anyway, I am waiting on written confirmation that the BAND has seen the rider and knows the limitations. It's one thing for the TM to approve but I don't intend to spend a miserable night with a band that didn't know the system was substituted. Nothing worse than unhappy muso's complaining all night...even if they are going to do the show.

The system I provide is SIGNIFICANTLY less than the rider, and the only thing the TM balked at was my minimal lights. The promoter has agreed to hire a separate lighting company and provide an electrician to ensure that all goes well. My system is small enough I don't run a distro, and the rider wanted separate circuits for every muso so I can't provide that.

Anyway, I am a little uneasy about satisfying these guys, but the TM does seem to realize that this is a 300 person club...not the Garden. I'll keep you posted.

PS...the promoter also gave me another show at the same venue with a much less demanding rider for putting up with band 1. Band 2 just got signed and are on their maiden tour, but they did say they don't like painful SPL levels and requested that a provided PA be clean, adequate coverage, and not stupid loud....just my cup of tea.

[Guest Anonymous]

Originally posted by RoboPimp let me ask the stupid question: how loud is 125 dB exactly? Any examples?

 

How loud? Well, it's hard to cite everyday examples that might be familiar since 125dB is pretty stinking loud. Old dB scales compair 120dB to jet aircraft at take-off (full power) from a couple hundred ft. away. Except, when was the last time you were a couple hundred ft. directly behind a jet at take-off? And, jets are a lot quiter than they used to be because 120dB a couple hundred ft. away was too stinking loud and the general public pitched a bitch.

 

A few examples:

 

1) A 44 cal magnum pistol muzzel blast is right in that 125dB range... maybe a little higher depending on your proximity.

 

2) Thunder at close range (1/4 mile or so from strike).

 

That's about all I can think of. I've measured the SPL of some pretty loud everyday stuff, and none of it comes close to 125dB, including:

 

1) Big twin Harley under full load, straight pipes, approx 6ft. behind exhaust pipe. As I remember that approached 120dB

 

2) 90lb. jackhammer on prestressed concrete, approx 6ft. distant. That was this summer and it measured about 115dB peaks.

 

3) 10" tablesaw with somewhat dull blade cutting hardwood measured at operators position, just measured at about 112dB.

 

4) 8" handgrinder grinding on sheetmetal, measured at edge of sheetmetal, about 3ft. from grinding area... the loudest I could push the meter was 115 - 116dB.

 

5) Flagging for a crop duster, unmuffled radial 9 on an AgCat, 2 blade prop, fully loaded plane under full power, probably about 10 below the plane... as I remember slightly exceeded 120dB.

 

Generally 125dB is well beyond painful (120dB is considered the threshold of pain). Also, designing 125dB is just stupid since it's well above ear canal distortion levels, and the ears kind-of go into compression... and mush out. There really isn't much dynamics to music at 125dB program levels... it's just painfully, stupidly loud.

[Old Steve]

Originally posted by RoboPimp let me ask the stupid question: how loud is 125 dB exactly? Any examples?

Here's the first listing I got off of google. Do a search on SPL, DB, and or hearing damage, and you'll get lots of hits.
Rocket Launching 180
Jet Engine 140
Thunderclap, Air Raid Siren 1 Meter 130
Jet takeoff (200 ft) 120
Rock Concert, Discotheque 110
Firecrackers, Subway Train 100
Heavy Truck (15 Meter), City Traffic 90
Alarm Clock (1 Meter), Hair Dryer 80
Noisy Restaurant, Business Office 70
Air Conditioning Unit, Conversational Speech 60
Light Traffic (50 Meter), Average Home 50
Living Room, Quiet Office 40
Library, Soft Whisper (5 Meter) 30
Broadcasting Studio, Rustling Leaves 20
Hearing Threshold 0


And straight from OSHA, here are the number of hours you can safely listen to corresponding A-weighted db levels:
Hours db
8...........................| 90
6...........................| 92
4...........................| 95
3...........................| 97
2...........................| 100
1 1/2 ......................| 102
1...........................| 105
1/2 ........................| 110
1/4 or less................| 115

Finally, the "threshold of pain" is somewhere between 120db and 140db. 125db doesn't necessarily mean everyone who is exposed to it will instantly become permanantly deaf (lots of other factors to consider), but it's well above what's considered "dangerous".

I assume that to this point, we can all agree with the numbers?

Ok, now to think like a lawyer:(:
As for the car analogy, here's what I was trying to get at: in most instances, a car is for personal transportation, not used for driving the public around as a service(i.e. a taxi or bus). Public transportation has it's own set of laws, regulations, and liabilities that are different than what's been established for personal vehicles. In EITHER case, if you harm somebody else doing ANYTHING (playing music too loud, running them over in a car, or smacking them with a 2x4) you're liable for any damages in a civil case. You also may or may not be guilty of a crime in a criminal case...but this is all about civil law (this will become important later). So if I buy a car that goes 200mph, as long as it's legal to be on the street, that's ok. On the other hand, if I buy a schoolbus and modify it so that it goes 200mph because I want a really fast bus, and if the bus is involved in an accident that involves high speed, I'm in MORE trouble than if I just left the bus in a "standard" configuration. The FIRST question any lawyer would pose in a trail would be, "why did you modify the bus to go 200mph?", and just saying, "I never intended for the bus driver to exceed the speed limit" probably won't cut it with a jury. If I run somebody over doing 200mph in a Ferrari, you can also be sure that my high rate of speed will factor into both the criminal and/or civil trials. Still, just like a chainsaw, any car is also potentially dangerous.

So the car analogy doesn't work because there are all kinds of dangerous products available to the consumer. The difference comes into play when you take the product out of the "personal and private use" world and into some sort of public venue. While you're driving your car in "public" (on a public road), most drivers (those not being paid to provide transportation) are still playing in the "personal use" side of the field. A bus or taxi, however, has to play by different rules because it's providing a service to clients and/or the public. In this case, the PA is like the bus or taxi...not like my Toyota, and it's an important difference.

Now, back to the legal thing:
I think we can all agree that if/when ANYTHING bad happens and somebody gets injured, any party that's deemed "responsible" for causing the injury is open to a lawsuit.

Next, I think we all know that just because you get sued doesn't mean that you'll necessarily be held accountable for damages...some things just aren't your fault. That's what the courts are for, to decide who is at fault, and to determine whether the injured party deserves some form of restitution for his injuries. Are we all still in agreement? Good.

In most states, if the suit actually goes to trial, the decisions will be made by a jury. In a case like this, the odds are very good that anybody who knows anything about sound won't make it onto the jury, and you'll end up with a dozen or so (depending on the state) random individuals who don't know an SPL from the DMV who will sort out the evidence.

It's a virtual lock that the plaintiff's attorney will use the written rider, with it's spec of "cruise at 125db at FOH" as a key piece of evidence.

It's also a virtual lock that the defendant will claim that "just because it can go to 125db doesn't mean that it actually went to 125db" as the basis of his defense.

Still with me here?

So each side will then call in their own expert witnesses, and Audiopile, Agedhorse, and Mr. Knobs will all have to put on a suit and tie and waste a day in court as expert witnesses....but they'll get paid for it and may even score a free lunch.

In the end, the jury will be left with these absolute facts:
1.) 125db is an unreasonably loud sound level because OSHA says it's dangerous, and nobody is disputing it.
2.) the rider specfically asked for a "PA" (whatever that is) that could produce this "dangerous" sound level.
3.) the PA might never have gone that high...but then again, there's a guy over there who can't hear anymore, and his doctor said that it was caused by exposure to damaging sound levels....oh yeah, and the guy works in a library and isn't exposed to loud sounds elsewhere in his life.

So from a BURDEN OF PROOF perspective, where in a civil trial the jury just needs to look at THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE (aka, you don't need a go beyond a "shadow of a doubt" like you would in a criminal trial) the jury is likely to say that there's enough evidence to find for the plaintiff.... that exposure to overly high sound levels caused an injury to the plaintiff . That's it...it doesn't matter at this point what the SPL really was...just that the PA caused the guy to lose his hearing . The rider specs were just part of the case that got to this conclusion.

The defendant, on the other hand, will have his hands full trying to prove after the fact that the sound level never exceeded a 'dangerous level', when he specifically asked for it in writing. As you can see, the rider is a key piece of evidence, and an important nail in the defendant's coffin. After the fact, it's highly doubtful that there would be any evidence one way or the other that could prove how loud things actually got...that's what makes the rider so significant. The rider proves that it's possible that it could have happened as a result of the PA. In many cases, that's all a jury would need.

Now let's look at it from the "what if they DIDN'T spec out 125db in the rider" perspective. Again, somebody claims that their hearing is damaged, but suddenly they can't prove or disprove that the sound ever got above 110db (same as in the other example). If nobody else's hearing was damaged, it becomes a whole lot easier for the defense attorneys to fall back on the "hey, we never got that loud and nobody else got hurt" defense. In fact, the defense lawyer will have a much easier time claiming that the PA was INCAPABLE of getting that loud (whether it was or not).

See where this is going? It's not a question of what may or may not actually happen with that much PA, it's the fact that the rider puts this demand in writing. Pull that line out of the rider, and it's a totally different situation.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. I too enjoy the "water cooler debate" aspect of this stuff. My panties aren't bunched and I have no intent of trying to bunch those of any other party (who may sue me for 'malicious and premeditated bunching of panties') :D:D

[agedhorse]

Great post Steve... and I think quite accurate EXCEPT for the suit and tie thing:D

[Old Steve]

Originally posted by agedhorse Great post Steve... and I think quite accurate EXCEPT for the suit and tie thing:D

Thanks, but at least I scored you a free lunch...which we all know there's no such thing as...

[Guest Anonymous]

Originally posted by Old Steve Jet takeoff (200 ft) 120 I assume that to this point, we can all agree with the numbers?

I suspect jets are generally quieter, and this corelation is a bit out-dated.

[Old Steve]

Originally posted by Audiopile I suspect jets are generally quieter, and this corelation is a bit out-dated.

"Jet" is also a fairly random term, too. I imagine an F-18 on full afterburner is a little louder than some corporate gulfstream.

Can we at least agree that 120db is "loud" and 125db is "even louder"?

Actually I enjoyed some of your more up-to-date reference points. 6 feet behind a V-Twin Harley is something I can relate to. Definitely passes the threshold from "hearing" to "feeling", and it can be tough to carry on a conversation in the same room.

[Guest Anonymous]

Originally posted by Old Steve "Jet" is also a fairly random term, too. I imagine an F-18 on full afterburner is a little louder than some corporate gulfstream. Can we at least agree that 120db is "loud" and 125db is "even louder"?

I zero-ed in on this specifically since:

1) I've seen dB reference charts dating back to the... oh... 60's I suppose... and that 120dB = jet aircraft at take off @ 100m has been a referenced benchmark for a long time, 'cept:

2) 120dB at 100m was just too stinking loud... the general public pitched a bitch in a serious way... and jet mfgs. have been forced to quiet it down... a bunch.

Point is: There's a lot of precedence that 120dB is just too stinking loud.

Our "kinder and gentler" society has become much less tolerant of reckless behavior.

You know: demonstrations are common in court rooms... I can see it now: So, how loud is "cruising at 125dB?" Then the plaintiff rolls in a system, pops in a Kid Rock CD, and cranks it to 125dB cruise for the jury. The plaintiff rests his case, the jury goes into deliberation... for how long? I would suspect about 5 to 10 seconds.

[fantasticsound]

Old Steve...

Sounds reasonable... except you again acted as plaintiff's attorney by ignoring the most vital words on the page regarding the SPL; "capable of" Despite your protestations, that phrase changes everything.

Defense attorneys can easily point out that virtually any pair of headphones can easily cause damaging levels in the same neighborhood as this system. Home stereos and car stereos can easily do the same.

Then you assume facts not in evidence. That it was the PA that caused someone's hearing damage. That will be as in question as whether or not the PA ever rose to damaging levels. Other patrons, not to mention those working the venue would be called to show they were apparently unaffected by the same SPL's at the same show.

Otherwise, you're again left with convincing a lay jury that the SPL's in question were achieved and that they were damaging.

That's the crux and it's entirely independent of the capabilities of the system. You pointed out the reasons a system you might operate could be capable of, but not run at these levels.

So while your last post might represent one possible outcome of just such a trial, it's hardly the only outcome.

Why can't you admit this is just another piece of evidence to be considered and not a "smoking gun"?

I'm fully aware this could contribute to an award of damages, but that doesn't mean it will.

[Guest Anonymous]

Originally posted by fantasticsound Old Steve ... Sounds reasonable... except you again acted as plaintiff's attorney by ignoring the most vital words on the page regarding the SPL; " capable of " Despite your protestations, that phrase changes everything. Defense attorneys can easily point out that virtually any pair of headphones can easily cause damaging levels in the same neighborhood as this system. Home stereos and car stereos can easily do the same. Then you assume facts not in evidence. That it was the PA that caused someone's hearing damage. That will be as in question as whether or not the PA ever rose to damaging levels. Other patrons, not to mention those working the venue would be called to show they were apparently unaffected by the same SPL's at the same show. Otherwise, you're again left with convincing a lay jury that the SPL's in question were achieved and that they were damaging. That's the crux and it's entirely independent of the capabilities of the system. You pointed out the reasons a system you might operate could be capable of, but not run at these levels. So while your last post might represent one possible outcome of just such a trial, it's hardly the only outcome. Why can't you admit this is just another piece of evidence to be considered and not a "smoking gun"? I'm fully aware this could contribute to an award of damages, but that doesn't mean it will .

Ah yes, but: Generally it's in court because there was a problem. It seems to me that defending why it was specified would be difficult to explain away. To me there was a clear intent to have the capacity to cause harm, and if harm resulted (or was even implicated)... the defense would be on pretty thin ice.

[Old Steve]

Ok, time to go off topic....jet engines....apologies in advance.

I live approximately 3 miles due south of the runway at Westchester County Airport (HPN). This airport is a smaller regional/suburban airport that serves the NYC northern suburbs. In addition to tons of corporate and private planes, Continental, American, USAir, Delta, United and a couple other "major" airlines utilize the airport with planes as big as 737's and MD'80s (in addition to other regional jets and puddle jumpers).

The airport has been around for over 50 years and was expanded and modernized (going from a tin-shack termainal to a real one) about 10 years ago.

The airport is surrounded by some veeeeery expensive real estate in Greenwich Connecticut, and Armonk, Harrison, Rye and Purchase NY (my house doesn't qualify ).

Anyway, as you may imagine, if you pay $3 million for a house you might get a little cranky when those pesky jets start flying around and making a racket. As a result, the airport and most of the residents have an uneasy truce established...no flights in or out between the hours of 11pm and 6am. Occasionally the curfew is broken, and people whine, but there's been little bloodshed to date.

Fast forward to about 5 years ago when a developer decided to build a gated community of homes literally at the foot of the runway. No kidding, the northernmost house in this subdivision is about 200 yards from the runway. I actually feared for the roofers' lives while they were building the homes. At the time they were built, the houses were going for about $600k, but since then they've appreciated to the point where they're closer to the $800-$1million mark in value.

Wouldn't you know it, this subdivision has started pressuring the airport to stop making so much noise!

It just cracks me up....a recently expanded airport in a veeeery busy market exists within sight of your potential new home. They even have an anti-collision light up on a post in the middle of the neighborhood....all of it was there when you were looking for a new home...and NOW you SUDDENLY realize that the planes at the airport might disturb you?!? Maybe you shoulda taken your $$$ and bought a house a town or two over, ya morons!!!

Anyway, I get to read about all of the new anti-noise technology in jets on a pretty regular basis, but it never ceases to amaze me how idiotic some people can be.

Sorry for the trip to off-topic land....back to your regularly scheduled show.

[Old Steve]

Originally posted by Audiopile Ah yes, but: Generally it's in court because there was a problem. It seems to me that defending why it was specified would be difficult to explain away. To me there was a clear intent to have the capacity to cause harm, and if harm resulted (or was even implicated)... the defense would be on pretty thin ice.

 

 

Exactly! I'm assuming that somebody is claiming damages. Without an injury of some type, there's nothing to argue.

 

In respect to a "smoking gun", that's not what you need in a civil case. It sure helps in a criminal case where you're innocent until proven guilty and the plaintiff(the state) needs to remove any shadow of doubt, but in a civil case, you only need to provide enough evidence to convince a jury that the evidence favors one side or the other.

 

So look at it this way: we both know that the rider will be brought up in the case...would the defendant's case be stronger or weaker with that clause in the rider.

 

If you use the old 'scales of justice' metaphor, even if the full weight of the rider doesn't land in the plaintiff's bucket, MORE of the weight goes toward the plaintiff's side, giving him an advantage (i.e. some additional thing that the defendant needs to counter). Since the spec in the rider can be easily changed without changing what kind of PA shows up, wouldn't it be prudent to remove that line from the rider to theoretically pull one bullet out of the defense's gun before they can fire it?

 

OR, to look at it another way, what advantage in court could that line possibly give the defendant if/when somebody sues? I don't see one.

 

So you're right: it IS just another piece of evidence (not a smoking gun), but it's a piece of evidence that favors the plaintiff and has provides nothing but a headache (or worse) for the defendant.

[Craig Vecchione]

Originally posted by Old Steve Exactly! I'm assuming that somebody is claiming damages. Without an injury of some type, there's nothing to argue. In respect to a "smoking gun", that's not what you need in a civil case. It sure helps in a criminal case where you're innocent until proven guilty and the plaintiff(the state) needs to remove any shadow of doubt, but in a civil case, you only need to provide enough evidence to convince a jury that the evidence favors one side or the other. So look at it this way: we both know that the rider will be brought up in the case...would the defendant's case be stronger or weaker with that clause in the rider. If you use the old 'scales of justice' metaphor, even if the full weight of the rider doesn't land in the plaintiff's bucket, MORE of the weight goes toward the plaintiff's side, giving him an advantage (i.e. some additional thing that the defendant needs to counter). Since the spec in the rider can be easily changed without changing what kind of PA shows up, wouldn't it be prudent to remove that line from the rider to theoretically pull one bullet out of the defense's gun before they can fire it? OR, to look at it another way, what advantage in court could that line possibly give the defendant if/when somebody sues? I don't see one. So you're right: it IS just another piece of evidence (not a smoking gun), but it's a piece of evidence that favors the plaintiff and has provides nothing but a headache (or worse) for the defendant.

 

 

Had the rider specified forty thousand watts, a dozen big and efficient FOH cabinets, and a bunch of processing gear, would it be more or less damaging? If you answer "less", then why? It's about what you need to produce the volume level specified, so what makes it different?

 

Again, to drag the car analogy in again; what if you took a trip, and faxed a rental request to the Hertz location, and specified a Shelby Cobra from their Specialty Vehicle rental division? Then you took a friend out, and while driving 120mph, lost control and injured him? Would the rental fax request make you "more guilty" because you specified a Cobra instead of a Focus? You asked for a car capable of dangerous speed. Does that imply that you intended to drive at dangerous speed? Or is it the action that's at issue...the *fact* that you crashed the car?

 

Basically, what I see is that "intent" as it applies to a sound rider, is not a crime. There's nothing on the books about "intent to damage hearing", as there's "intent to cause a terrorist act", etc. But mostly, proving intent with a document that doesn't state intent is a very very thin angle to pursue. Especially when it would be the actual act that is at issue.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Audiopile Ah yes, but: Generally it's in court because there was a problem. It seems to me that defending why it was specified would be difficult to explain away. To me there was a clear intent to have the capacity to cause harm, and if harm resulted (or was even implicated)... the defense would be on pretty thin ice.

 

 

You know what they say about assumptions, right?

 

You're not in court because there was a problem. You're in court because the defendant says there was a problem. Proving that to be the case is why you're there in the first place, and if you're found to be responsible then there is the matter of how responsible you are. But while civil trials put a far bigger burden on the defendant to prove they didn't cause harm or damage, this line in the rider doesn't state anything about the actual use and therefore doesn't say anything specific about how loud the concert is, was or will be.

 

As a PA provider, it behooves you to ask the TM if they intend to run the system that wide open. That's how you protect yourself from culpability. If he says, "Yes, we do intend to run it that loud." then I agree... definitely time to bow out and let someone else take the risk.

 

My problem with your arguement Steve, is that I don't see this being on the plaintiff's side. I see it as a neutral piece of evidence until one or the other attorney convinces the jury just what it means. Both you and Audiopile treat it as though it's already proven to mean there is an absolute implication that the system is, was, or would be run that loud.

 

That implication is not proven.

 

 

Regarding jets... Interesting situation. I, too, have little sympathy for morons who saw the "convenient access to the airport" and bought homes without a thought to the noise issues involved.

 

O'Hare Airport is running into similar problems, but they're being created by the addition of more airport on land previously occupied by residences, putting runways closer to homes that used to have a respectful distance from the noise and danger. The City Of Chicago has even found a way to inflict its' will on a small town that borders O'Hare. Somehow, the mayor managed to use eminent domain laws and the nasty legal tangle because O'Hare is run under federal laws to usurp the small town's control over their own property, which was needed for the current expansion.

 

You couldn't pay me enough to live that close to any project under the complete control of either the city or federal government, especially an airport.

[Old Steve]

Craig: I'm not going to touch the rental car analogies...again, there's a line between personal use of something dangerous (i.e. you pays your money and you takes your chances) vs. putting the public at risk by providing equipment that may prove harmful...the whole bus/taxi vs. personal use vehicle thing.

As for intent, again, it becomes irrelevant once the case goes to court. It's easy enough to prove that 125db is potentially harmful, so if/when somebody claims that they've been injured (something that can be proven scientifically) the only relevant argument is whether or not the sound company did something to cause the injury. Since the odds are that nobody will have a timeline with soundmeter readings for the show (the only way to really prove what the volume was), it's a "he said/she said" kind of case. Rather than flipping a coin, both sides will present their evidence and let the jury decide. The written statement "able to cruise at 125db" is certainly allowable as evidence and would be used. While it alone proves absolutely nothing, there's no 'upside' for the defense with this piece of evidence. On the other hand, this statment helps the plaintiff...maybe a little, maybe a lot.

Intent isn't the issue, it comes down to interpretation by the jury. Also, keep in mind, we're not talking about a crime here. This is a civil case. If you fall down the steps on my front porch, it's likely that I'm not guilty of a criminal act (I push people down my BASEMENT steps ), but becasue I may not have scraped the ice off of them before you fell, I am liable from a CIVIL standpoint...my steps, my problem.

Fantastic:
Ok I guess in the hypothetical world we've created, I have assumed that in fact somebody gets injured. You're right, if nobody gets hurt, there's not only no crime but also no basis to sue. Buuuut, since we're talking in terms of potential liablitiy, we need to pretend that in fact somebody claims that they've been injured. I'll also assume (with all of the implications that apply) that in fact somebody's hearing was injured and that it can be medically/scientifically verified (i.e. a diagnosis of hearing loss, tinnitus, etc.).

So where does that leave us? As a basis of this hypothetical situation, we'll assume that somebody wants to blame their recent hearing loss on exposure to the PA system spec'ed out in the rider. That's all we know going in.

You're correct in stating that evidence is in fact nuetral until it is presented, and that an attorney will try to have the jury interpret it. Still, I don't see how this particular piece of evidence can possibly HELP the defendant in this case. Sure, it may not PROVE anything, but in a civil case you really don't need to PROVE anything. So every piece of evidence is either ends up helping or hurting one side or the other. Maybe it's just me, but it seems clear that if 125db can be described as "hazardous volume level", you can easily subsitute in "cruise at 125db" with "cruise at a hazardous volume level".

Granted, this proves absolutley nothing, but it sure doesn't help the defendant prove that it WASN'T his sound system or operator who hurt the plaintiff. So to the defendant, this piece of evidence is somewhere between neutral and hurtful for his case (unless you can show me how it would actually be helpful to his case).

Now, look at it from the plaintiff's side. While it may not PROVE his case, it certainly HELPS his case. By being able to prove that the PA was capable of causing damage, the PA becomes a possible culprit as a cause of his hearing loss. If no other causes/culprits can be found, we know that "the weapon was in the room" (figuratively speaking), or that an opportunity for injury existed. So this piece of evidence is at WORST neutral for the plaintiff, and at BEST it makes the case.

So for this one piece of evidence, it's clearly "not positive" for the defense (it's either nuetral or bad) and clearly "not negative" for the plaintiff. The question remains: why would you put something "not positive" for you in a rider that's only "not negative" for the plaintiff should you be sued (justly or unjustly).

Final thing to consider that nobody else seems to want to get involved in: juries. People have a natural tendency to draw conclusions. So if you take 12 people who don't know the science of sound, and then get two fueding attorneys and two teams of conflicting expert witnesses, certain things will buzz past as 'static' to the jury and certain things will become clear. My guess (again assuming two relatively competent lawyers) is that the "able to cruise at 125db" thing will rise above the clutter. I'll further hypothesize that the OSHA guidelines and/or some examples of what ELSE produces 125db (harley's, rockets, whatever) will also rise above the clutter. Finally, I'd venture to guess that any discussion of watts, ohms, dispersion patterns, or other technical stuff will be harder to understand. So the odds are pretty good that once both sides have presented their case, the typical thought process of a typical (non sound expert) juror will go like this:

1.) ok, the plaintiff has hearing loss, and the symptoms occured after exposure to the PA (pretty easy to prove)
2.) the sound company demanded and received a PA capable of producing 125db.
3.) 125db is dangerous...thanks to Audiopile's demonstration with the Kid Rock CD....guy must have been pissed to have to wear a suit and tie.
4.) It's reasonable to assume, in light of no evidence to the contrary,(which, by the way, is as far as you need to go in a civil case) that somehow somebody screwed up and turned the PA up to what it was capable of doing and injured the plaintiff.

Again, the case will never be "proven" by the document. But why put something potentially damning in there in the first place?

Hey, at least we can agree that if you buy a house near an airport, you shouldn't complain about the planes flying over!

[fantasticsound]

Believe it or not, I'm still not making myself clear.

It's not whether the plaintiff has hearing damage. It's, as you rightly suggest in your next statement, that he/she claims that damage was caused by the concert.

Without arguing the semantics any further, I would suggest the defendant's lawyers would argue that anyone who knowingly goes to what they believe will be a loud concert probably listens to music at home and in their car much too loud. So the damage to plaintiff's hearing wasn't necessarily caused by the concert so much as continued exposure to high SPL.

If lay people hear that a car stereo can cause the same damage as the concert sound system, now that rider spec doesn't hold nearly as much weight, methinks.

It's all in the lawyers' cleverness, isn't it?

Anyway, that's all I have to say on the subject. To be honest, I, personally would never word a rider that way, either, so I'm beginning to feel ridiculous for arguing on this band's/TM's behalf.

[Old Steve]

Ok, we've veered off course here (admittedly, I brought in the airport story ).

At the end of the day, certain things can be proven, and certain things need to be interpreted. More importantly, it's important to keep to the original question in sight: does the clause in question open you up for legal problems?

Obviously, I'm sticking with the idea that the clause in question is potentially risky from a legal standpoint. I've tried to prove this by using a hypothetical lawsuit as an example, assuming that somebody claims they've been injured and is suing.

According to the law, people have a resonable expectation not to be injured when the attend a public perfomance. While the ticket may even have a release of liability on it saying that you're attending at your own risk, that that release won't cover neglegent behavior on the part of the operator. In other words, if you get your nose broken in the mosh pit, you probably don't have a case. On the other hand, if a flown speaker breaks off it's supports and crashes down onto you and breaks your nose, you have a case. Basically, a falling speaker isn't a "reasonable expectation" of attending a concert.

With the case of a concert, there's a difference between "loud" and "dangerously loud". If you go to a concert and leave with ringing ears and a headache, and you're all better the next day, you really weren't "injured" from a legal standpoint. On the flipside, if you suffer permanent hearing damage, you were "injured".

So far all of this is relatively "proveable"...guy goes into a loud concert with functioning ears, guy leaves concert with premanent hearing damage. IF this scenario plays out...a guy with good hearing leaves a concert with permanently bad hearing, and he sues..."able to cruise at 125db" is something you sure as hell don't want in your rider.

There are literally millions of "less harmful" things to put in the rider that would get the job done AND not help the plaintiff out.

The rest of it's all irrelevant...if there's an injury that can be traced to noise produced at the concert (big 'if', but it's possible) then having that clause in the rider is an unnecessary liability.

[B. Adams]

On the other hand, how does one prove that their hearing was good before the incident?

My brother is in the reserve military, and he took a hearing exam at the beginning of his service in Iraq. It was probably required, but he took it, and his hearing was OK. Right after his service was done, he took a voluntary hearing test, and he had some permanent damage. Wars and guns tend to do that, I guess. In any case, if he had waited any longer after he got back to get the test, he wouldn't have been able to prove that he was on active duty when the damage occurred. It would be the same had he not taken a test at the beginning of his active duty.

As far as I can tell, most people don't take a hearing test immediately before and after attending a concert, so it seems that it would be difficult to prove that the concert itself coused the damage.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a hassle to go to court over a hearing damage suit, and it would certainly be expensive. But in the end, unless someone could conclusively prove that their hearing was damaged as a direct result of a concert, it is unlikely that any damages would have to be paid.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I think it's unlikely.

Then again, I don't want to get in an arguement either...

[Old Steve]

Originally posted by B. Adams On the other hand, how does one prove that their hearing was good before the incident? ..... Then again, I don't want to get in an arguement either...

You're absolutely right. Either way, the defense is going to look for other factors that may have come into play, and it'll be up to the plaintiff to try to prove that his hearing was damaged at the concert . Still, without any absolute proof either way...his friends and acquaintances all say he was hearing fine before the concert, no previous medical complaints about hearing, he started complaining after the show...the defense will have to look to other habits or exposure the guy might have had (if the guy runs a jackhammer for a living, obviously his case is weaker).

Then again, that still misses the point. I guess I'm assuming that somebody's hearing is actually damagaed...that they've got a good case, and that in fact their hearing damage happened at the concert. Without the "cruise at 125db" language, it would be much easier for the defense to skirt the volume issue and claim lower SPL's (no evidence one way or the other) and try to play the injury off as something outside of injury directly caused by loud volume. With the "125db" level in the rider, however, the defense will have a tougher time squirming out of the suit if they're in fact "guilty", and/or if they're not guilty they could be perceived as such by the statement.

Anyway, I'm done with this one. IMHO, it's just a dumb thing to put in a rider when there are other, less legally damaging, ways to end up with the same PA you want.

[Craig Vecchione]

I'm pretty sure we've all been arguing for argument's sake. None of us would either write or honor such a rider. I hope:freak:

[Guest Anonymous]

Originally posted by Old Steve Anyway, I'm done with this one. IMHO, it's just a dumb thing to put in a rider when there are other, less legally damaging, ways to end up with the same PA you want.

I disagree here.

It's pretty obvious to me the wording is deliberate and to the point. The PA the little man wants is something he can inflict some damage with.

I guess that's why I brought this matter up. There's no doubt in my mind, somebody with "that" wording is up to no good. I wouldn't want to have any association due to the potentially bad liability position, as well as not being a party to enabling reckless/hurtful behavior.

[Kennykeys]

Originally posted by Audiopile ...... Except, when was the last time you were a couple hundred ft. directly behind a jet at take-off?

 

Uh, yesterday....

 

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/483575/M/

.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=216679

.

http://sunsetbeachbar.com/Members/Norbert/phot_1102630756/Boeing%20757%20Jetblast%20Two%2025.11.2004.JPG/photo_view

.

http://sunsetbeachbar.com/Members/Norbert/phot_1102630756/Boeing%20757%20Jetblast%2025.11.2004.JPG/photo_view

.

videos:

http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-780.htm

.

 

http://www.simradar.com/Feature/Misc_Videos/Misc_Real_Footage/index.html

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Audiopile Except, when was the last time you were a couple hundred ft. directly behind a jet at take-off? ...

 

 

March, 2002. We played in a Clamshell on the U.S. airbase connected with the Doha Int'l Airport in Qatar. I was specifically warned that two C-17 cargo planes (read: huge jets) would be going through pre-flight checks, including several minutes of the jet engines at significant throttle, in the middle of our show.

 

Sure enough, we had to shut down for approximately 10 min. You couldn't hear anything but jet engine, as they were literally pointing their wash in our direction. That, in a Clamshell, which is a completely reverberent space.