A professional viola player has won a personal injury claim for exposure to unacceptable noise levels in the pit at Covent Garden during a rehearsal of Wagner’s Ring Cycle
Christopher Goldscheider, who was seated directly in front of the trumpets during the Saturday afternoon rehearsal on 1 September 2012, could receive £750,000 in lost earnings alone in the unprecedented case. He claims the noise levels caused him acoustic shock, an injury that he continues to suffer from and which has prevented his return to music.
The case, Goldscheider v The Royal Opera House Covent Garden Foundation [2018] EWHC 687 (QB), could have major repercussions for live performance.
Ben Pepper, senior solicitor in the complex injuries team at Bolt Burdon Kemp, said: ‘This landmark decision by the High Court is highly significant; it is the first time that acoustic shock has been acknowledged by the court as a condition that should be compensated for.
‘The judgment will have huge implications for the music industry. Those responsible will not be able to rely on the artistic nature of the business to get around health and safety regulations.
‘The wellbeing of musicians will need to prioritised going forward in order to prevent such incidences from reoccurring.’
Goldscheider pled breaches of the Royal Opera House’s obligations under the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. In his position seated in front of about 18 to 20 brass players rehearsing Richard Wagner’s ‘Die Walküre’, he claimed he was exposed to noise which reached or exceeded 87 dB(A), and which reached or exceeded a peak sound pressure level of 140 dB(C). Although he wore hearing protection, it was not enough to protect him from harm.
The Royal Opera House denied the breaches and countered that it had taken all reasonable practicable steps to reduce noise exposure to a low level. It alleged contributory negligence, denied medical causation and denied the existence of acoustic shock as a medically diagnosable condition.
Giving her judgment, Mrs Justice Nicola Davies said: ‘The concept of acoustic shock is relatively new and thus far primarily associated with reports emanating from call centres.
‘Mr Jones, the defendant’s expert who retired from clinical practice some five and a half years ago, was dismissive of the concept. I do not regard the absence of reported cases of acoustic shock amongst professional musicians as being determinative on this issue of causation. Medical learning and knowledge is an evolving concept. It is the mechanism of acoustic shock and the nature and symptomatology of the claimant’s injury which is relevant to the determination of this issue.’
Davies J dismissed the contributory negligence argument on the basis that by the time the claimant should have appreciated that he should leave the rehearsal—after hearing the noise level of the Principal trumpet—the damage had been done.
On causation, she said: ‘In my view there is a clear factual and causal link between the identified breaches of the Regulations and the high level of noise which ensued at the rehearsal.
‘It commenced with an inadequate risk assessment, continued with a failure to undertake any monitoring of noise levels in the cramped orchestra pit with a new orchestral configuration which had been chosen for artistic reasons. Even when complaints were raised the three-hour afternoon rehearsal was commenced and completed in the absence of any live time noise monitoring.’
