Do You Think I Could Sue Rock Concert Organizer for Causing My Tinnitus?

[Mentos]

I wonder if any of you who got your tinnitus after concert/club ever considered to sue an event organizer asking for compensation?

I have my T after concert for 2.5 years already so it's definitely chronic.

My logic is that indeed in the terms&conditions organizer states they are not responsible for hearing damage, but nothing about risk of T.

What I understand as a hearing damage is you lose ability to hear certain frequencies and you may have dip in your audiogram, but T is far more than that, we know it's a brain demage (ie. auditory cortex), causes depression, anxiety, grey matter decrease over time, difficulties to concentrate and as a consequence it may impact negatively your ability to hold a well paid job.

So basically I feel there is a gap in the terms&condition which may leave a space for sueing. And I believe it's easy to prove that 3h in a room with 110-120dB room can cause permanent T, and that organizers are aware of it but they don't inform participants upfront about the risk.

I know this would be a bumpy road but still, do you guys think it's logical what I wrote?

 

[Rubenslash]

Not worth the trouble, no evidence at all that you have tinnitus or that it is caused by this concert.

 

[Mentos]

Not worth the trouble, no evidence at all that you have tinnitus or that it is caused by this concert.

I have files at my ENT from few days after the concert where I report tinnitus. Still with such subjective condition true it may be difficult to prove I have it, on the other hand the fact that there's no objective way to measure it does not change the fact that the condition exists and is well known by ENTs. With such condition they just gave to rely on what patient reports.

But you're right, would be difficult

 

[Bill Bauer]

the fact that there's no objective way to measure it

T researchers are able to determine whether lab rats have T. Does anyone know how they do that? Perhaps the same technique could be used to prove that a plaintiff in a T lawsuit has T...

 

[Sean]

I wonder if any of you who got your tinnitus after concert/club ever considered to sue an event organizer asking for compensation?

I have my T after concert for 2.5 years already so it's definitely chronic.

My logic is that indeed in the terms&conditions organizer states they are not responsible for hearing damage, but nothing about risk of T.

What I understand as a hearing damage is you lose ability to hear certain frequencies and you may have dip in your audiogram, but T is far more than that, we know it's a brain demage (ie. auditory cortex), causes depression, anxiety, grey matter decrease over time, difficulties to concentrate and as a consequence it may impact negatively your ability to hold a well paid job.

So basically I feel there is a gap in the terms&condition which may leave a space for sueing. And I believe it's easy to prove that 3h in a room with 110-120dB room can cause permanent T, and that organizers are aware of it but they don't inform participants upfront about the risk.

I know this would be a bumpy road but still, do you guys think it's logical what I wrote?

If you sue them and if you get an attorney on contingency basis... mean you pay only after you get paid. You might get a settlement amount from concert organizer because, they will try to avoid their attorney fees and plus if they lose the case, they have to pay your attorney fees as well.

Sue them if you can find a good attorney. Just because they make you sign something doesn't mean they can get away.

If you live in US, there are attorneys who are always looking for cases to sue.

 

[GregCA]

I doubt it.

 

[Mentos]

Not worth the trouble, no evidence at all that you have tinnitus or that it is caused by this concert.

You can't prove that you have hearing loss (you can cheat at audiogram check), still you can get compensation for it if your hearing is insured. Same thing.

 

[John G]

@Mentos Maybe calling/emailing a personal injury lawer and ask them?. Also, you got T from that concert 2.5 years ago... so that length of time waiting to do/say anything may go against you. Wouldn't hurt to contact a lawyer and see what they say.

 

[Mentos]

@Mentos Maybe calling/emailing a personal injury lawer and ask them?. Also, you got T from that concert 2.5 years ago... so that length of time waiting to do/say anything may go against you. Wouldn't hurt to contact a lawyer and see what they say.

Still I can claim that I tried to treat my T for the last 2.5years before I concluded it's chronic plus it took me 2.5years to fully understand its impact on my quality of life. But yeah, these are all speculations and nuances. I will consult the case with a lawyer but still I have doubts whether I want to spend years in court with constant reminder about T.

 

[DT_N_DA_CLUB]

Even if they can prove you in fact have tinnitus and hearing loss it was your choice to go to the event and stay.

 

[Bobbie7]

I wonder if any of you who got your tinnitus after concert/club ever considered to sue an event organizer asking for compensation?

I think whomever was attempting to sue would lose for sure. Why? Because anyone who was planning to attend would naturally assume the volume would be extremely loud so it follows... if they were fearful of loud sound, they would skip the concert since they were not forced to go.

 

[Mentos]

I think whomever was attempting to sue would lose for sure. Why? Because anyone who was planning to attend would naturally assume the volume would be extremely loud so it follows... if they were fearful of loud sound, they would skip the concert since they were not forced to go.

Would you say the same if someone fell out of rollercoaster in the theme park and die, that he new the risk and it was his choice? For sure not and as accidents like that happen I think family gets compensated for the loss of their relative in such accidents. Even if we can claim that if he was fearful of high speed he wouldn't go there and it was his choice to die in theme park. So things are not that simple and straightforward, I simply didn't know the noise can cause Tinnitus prior that concert because organizer did not inform me about the risk

 

[Tinker Bell]

Did every person attending the concert get tinnitus? No? Then how were the organizers to know you were more at risk for tinnitus when others were fine?

Can you prove that you did not have tinnitus before the concert?

Did the organizers warn you of every possible risk that existed at the concert? You could have tripped on steps and suffered an injury. You could have choked on any food served at the facility. Were there any bright lights? Bright lights can cause migraines or even seizures in some individuals. Smoke? Asthma attacks are possible. There is a long list of possible risks.

Just trying to give you a small idea of the line of questioning you would face.

Would you say the same if someone fell out of rollercoaster in the theme park and die, that he new the risk and it was his choice? For sure not and as accidents like that happen I think family gets compensated for the loss of their relative in such accidents. Even if we can claim that if he was fearful of high speed he wouldn't go there and it was his choice to die in theme park. So things are not that simple and straightforward, I simply didn't know the noise can cause Tinnitus prior that concert because organizer did not inform me about the risk

Did the hypothetical roller coaster victim undo his seatbelt? If yes, then the amusement park is not responsible. Did the seatbelt malfunction due to negligence (the amusement park knew it was broke, intentionally did not inspect the ride, etc.)? Then yes, their family could sue because there is a reasonable expectation that a roller coaster has been inspected and patrons will not fall from it.

The reasonable expectation at a concert is that it is loud. Injuries incurred from that expectation do not mean the venue is negligent.

 

[Mentos]

The reasonable expectation at a concert is that it is loud. Injuries incurred from that expectation do not mean the venue is negligent.

It is negligent as long as they don't openly inform about the risk. We better start thinking this way otherwise they'll keep on hurting uninformed attendees. But that's my personal view. Same as they started placing health warnings on tobacco products at some point in time in order to make smokers aware about the risk. If they keep smoking knowing the risk it's fully smokers conscious decision. But there are people that started smoking before health warnings were placed on packs who won huge compensations from tobacco corporations for the health issues.

 

[Starlord]

Why dont people own up to their own mistakes rather than blame others. Either way not everybodys hearing is at the same level or health. Audiograms dont mean squat. Who knows what you've exposed yourself over the years.

 

[Mentos]

Why dont people own up to their own mistakes rather than blame others. Either way not everybodys hearing is at the same level or health. Audiograms dont mean squat. Who knows what you've exposed yourself over the years.

Again, mistake is when you know the risk, you take it and you suffer afterwards. I know a girl of 22, first concert ever, severe T, destroyed life. Never heard a T word before. Was it her mistake? I wouldn't call it this way, word accident fits the situation better. But accident that could have been avoided: 1. if she was informed on the ticket 2. If they wouldn't play it 120dB at the venue 3. If they advised people to wear earplugs. There's so much more concert organizers can do to limit the risk of harming people, can't believe it's so difficult to understand by fellow T sufferers. But someone needs to force them to do more in this field, lost cases in court would be a perfect motivation for them to do so. Otherwise they will never give a damn about it

 

[Tinker Bell]

It is negligent as long as they don't openly inform about the risk. We better start thinking this way otherwise they'll keep on hurting uninformed attendees. But that's my personal view. Same as they started placing health warnings on tobacco products at some point in time in order to make smokers aware about the risk. If they keep smoking knowing the risk it's fully smokers conscious decision. But there are people that started smoking before health warnings were placed on packs who won huge compensations from tobacco corporations for the health issues.

But tinnitus -- in the majority of cases -- corresponds to hearing damage, and they warned you of hearing damage. It is not their responsibility to inform you of every single possible symptom that corresponds with hearing damage. Did you know that people with hearing loss often feel isolated from society? Suffer from depression? I am going to guess they did not warn you of those possibilities either.

Again, mistake is when you know the risk, you take it and you suffer afterwards. I know a girl of 22, first concert ever, severe T, destroyed life. Never heard a T word before. Was it her mistake? I wouldn't call it this way, word accident fits the situation better. But accident that could have been avoided: 1. if she was informed on the ticket 2. If they wouldn't play it 120dB at the venue 3. If they advised people to wear earplugs. There's so much more concert organizers can do to limit the risk of harming people, can't believe it's so difficult to understand by fellow T sufferers. But someone needs to force them to do more in this field, lost cases in court would be a perfect motivation for them to do so. Otherwise they will never give a damn about it

I do agree that no venue should play music at 120 dB. That would cause hearing damage for all patrons after only a few seconds. But it's too difficult to consistently show evidence that a concert caused tinnitus. Lost cases is not an effective avenue. But do you know what is? Lost revenue. If people stopped attending shows due to volume concerns, concert providers would have to make changes.

 

[fishbone]

I'd love to agree with you, but If someone takes the risk and goes to a loud event/concert, then damaging the ears is quite possible.

 

[Bobbie7]

Would you say the same if someone fell out of rollercoaster in the theme park and die, that he new the risk and it was his choice? For sure not and as accidents like that happen I think family gets compensated for the loss of their relative in such accidents. Even if we can claim that if he was fearful of high speed he wouldn't go there and it was his choice to die in theme park. So things are not that simple and straightforward, I simply didn't know the noise can cause Tinnitus prior that concert because organizer did not inform me about the risk

Somehow I do think there is a difference between the two... that is a concert and a rollercoaster. It is a given that the music will be extremely loud enabling all to hear the music since the concert venue is vast. No prudent person would take a child, for instance to one of these concerts without having some sort of protection and we, who are adults, have in some way experienced loud noise and we know they can be harmful in some way. We assume when we go to an amusement park, that there was proper/careful maintenance performed which deems it safe to ride upon. If a person falls and becomes injured or perishes as a result of the ride, then a suit can be forthcoming since we assumed it would be safe due to the inspection which should have been documented as being performed prior to the ride being started. Not so for a loud concert which we all assume can be deafening (heyyyy... did we not all at some point or other go to bars??? and know the music is loud there???).

I defer also to the salient points which @Tinker Bell - so proficiently noted and I agree with her assessment as well. Where one person might have a propensity to develop migraines when exposed to loud noises, it may not bother another in the least. I mean... the list can go on ad infinitum so does this necessarily follow that everything which is a result after a concert can be legitimately blamed on the music? I think not. To my way of thinking there is a vast difference between the two examples you cited and this is just my take on it.

Wising you a good evening,
Barbara

 

[Bobbie7]

Even if they can prove you in fact have tinnitus and hearing loss it was your choice to go to the event and stay.

@Mentos - The lawyer would ask why, when you were feeling uncomfortable with the high volume of music, did you choose to remain? Also, you sustained tinnitus 2 1/2 years ago... do you really expect any reputable lawyer would take your case? I doubt it.

 

[Mentos]

@Mentos - The lawyer would ask why, when you were feeling uncomfortable with the high volume of music, did you choose to remain? Also, you sustained tinnitus 2 1/2 years ago... do you really expect any reputable lawyer would take your case? I doubt it.

Yes, lawyer would take a case, already talked to one. He more or less agreed with my argumentation and thinks the chances are 50/50.

 

[Markku]

Yes, lawyer would take a case, already talked to one. He more or less agreed with my argumentation and thinks the chances are 50/50.

Would the lawyer work on contingency? This means that you wouldn't need to pay the lawyer up front, and he or she would only get paid in case you win.

 

[Greg Sacramento]

@Mentos The problem is that their lawyers will go thru your life with a fine toothed comb. They'll look to see if you had ever been exposed to other noise.

A check will be made to see if you live on a busy street or work in the city, plus they will check on a hundreds other ways that you could had been exposed to previous noise. They will request your mental records and will demand that you see other medical and mental care providers. They will have you take all sorts of medical tests. They will put you on the stand and drill and drill.

Working or going to school or any activity will be a factor. You will have to show severe mental stress.

You will have to be up to all the tension that comes with this.

Insurance companies often settle out of court with a low ball figure.

 

[Mentos]

Not so for a loud concert which we all assume can be deafening (heyyyy... did we not all at some point or other go to bars??? and know the music is loud there???).

I agree with your point to some extent @Bobbie7 , still it sounds like you're fine with unaware people being deafened, which I'm not ok with. True most people that go to events like concert expect it to be loud, but usually they don't understand the consequences because nobody told them what T is and nothing can be done. I suppose 90% od TT members who acquired T at loud event never heard a T word before (at least this is the case on Polish T forum where I belong). People should be informed about possible consequencies be the event organizer, that's my point of view. Whether it's possible to win a case against them is a secondary problem, primary is luck of awareness among people what is the risk. Or perhaps in States where you're from awareness about T is on a better level; in Poland usually people don't know what it is unless they have it. So in general my posts refer more to the situation in my country.

 

[Mentos]

Would the lawyer work on contingency? This means that you wouldn't need to pay the lawyer up front, and he or she would only get paid in case you win.

No, and that's the trick. I risk equivalent of 6-7k USD in case of loss which is 10% of potential compensation the lawyer thinks we can claim. I don't think I'm ready to take such risk with 50% chances, it's easier to play roulette and bet on Red.

 

[Alue]

I don't know what the laws are like in Poland, but I'd say no. You had the ability to leave the concert if it was too loud for you.

My tinnitus was caused by a brief work incident. There was nothing I could have done to prevent it and there was no reason to be wearing hearing plugs at the time, but it is impossible for me to sue my employer. Some people think you can sue for anything in the US, but this not true.

 

[Bobbie7]

Yes, lawyer would take a case, already talked to one. He more or less agreed with my argumentation and thinks the chances are 50/50.

@Mentos - Well... it certainly will be interesting to see what happens. Please keep us apprised if you proceed with the lawsuit.

 

[Mentos]

I don't know what the laws are like in Poland, but I'd say no. You had the ability to leave the concert if it was too loud for you.

My tinnitus was caused by a brief work incident. There was nothing I could have done to prevent it and there was no reason to be wearing hearing plugs at the time, but it is impossible for me to sue my employer. Some people think you can sue for anything in the US, but this not true.

Strange with accident at work, in my country in case of accident at work if it's not expliciltly emoloyee negligence you always get compensation from the employer. Employer is obliged to do a workplace risk assesment and inform employees about ALL possible risks. If an employer did not foresee certain risk an accident is his responsibilty and emoloyee gets compansated.

 

[GregCA]

No, and that's the trick. I risk equivalent of 6-7k USD in case of loss which is 10% of potential compensation the lawyer thinks we can claim. I don't think I'm ready to take such risk with 50% chances, it's easier to play roulette and bet on Red.

Now I understand why your lawyer estimated the chances of winning to 50%...

Make a counter offer: "I pay nothing upfront but I'll give you 50% of what we make, which is going to be 5 times what I would be paying you right now. With a 50% chance of winning, the statistical expectancy is still going to be 2.5 times what I would be paying you, so it's a no brainer deal for you."
See what he says: if he doesn't take the deal, you know his 50% is inflated.

 

[Mentos]

Now I understand why your lawyer estimated the chances of winning to 50%...

Make a counter offer: "I pay nothing upfront but I'll give you 50% of what we make, which is going to be 5 times what I would be paying you right now. With a 50% chance of winning, the statistical expectancy is still going to be 2.5 times what I would be paying you, so it's a no brainer deal for you."
See what he says: if he doesn't take the deal, you know his 50% is inflated.

The lawyer is an old friend of mine so I'm sure he is not trying to get my money for nothing nor inflating the chances. Anyway if the lawyer was only interested in the money he would claim 80% chances.