In a fit of sense, our own Occupational Safety and Health Administration has generally refrained from trying to protect symphony orchestra members from the noise of the bass trombones, trumpets and tympanies in their midst. Not so in the European Union, where a newly promulgated rule “reduces the allowable sound exposure in the European orchestral workplace from the present 90 decibels to 85. The problem is, a symphony orchestra playing full-out can easily reach 96 to 98 decibels, and certain brass and percussion instruments have registered 130 to 140 at close range.” (James R. Oestreich, “The Shushing of the Symphony”, New York Times, Jan. 11)(via Arthur Silber). See Mar. 8-10, 2002 (bagpipes); Dec. 22-25, 2000 (military bands). More: “Mindles H. Dreck” at Asymmetrical Information has further commentary and a BBC link.
Posts Tagged ‘Europe’
Forum shopping
Two Germans had a contract dispute with their former employer, German media giant Bertelsmann AG, regarding a European joint venture. The contract, written in German, required the application of German law, and (according to the defense) the major dispute was over the meaning of a German term in the contract. So where to sue? California, of course! The jury came through with a verdict of over a quarter-billion dollars, and their verdict form was apparently sufficiently muddled that the plaintiffs are going to argue that they were meant to receive over a billion dollars. The defense argues that part of the problem is a mistranslation of “participation” into “equity.” (Greg Risling, “Calif. Jury Rules Against Bertelsmann”, AP, Dec. 12; Gina Keating, “Jury Faults Bertelsmann in AOL Europe Suit”, Reuters, Dec. 11).
Update, Jan. 6, 2004: The plaintiffs’ attorney confirms that the main dispute was over interpretation of a clause in the German-language contract, but argues that it would have been “prohibitively costly” for the plaintiffs to bring the case in Germany–which, based on my experience in a number of cases where critical documents are not in English, and require expensive translation, strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely that the case would have been more expensive in Germany, much less prohibitively so if plaintiffs had a sincere belief that their case was worth in the billions. But the reporter does not challenge the assertion. (Nora Lockwood Tooher, “Two German Entrepreneurs Win $255 Million”, Lawyers Weekly USA, 2004).
EU court: church website violated privacy law
In a widely awaited decision, the European Court of Justice has ruled that a Swedish woman can be fined about $500 for identifying and publishing personal details about fellow church volunteers on her personal web site in breach of “data protection” privacy laws. Bodil Lindqvist of Alseda parish had published online “some full names, telephone numbers and references to hobbies and jobs held by her colleagues. In relation to one lady, Lindqvist also revealed that the volunteer had injured her foot and was working part-time on medical grounds.” A Swedish court found that she had violated data-privacy law in posting the page and the European Court agreed. (“Identifying people on-line violates Data Protection laws, says European Court”, Out-Law (UK), Nov. 7). We originally reported on the case Sept. 20, 2000.
Suing incompetent peacekeepers
Blessed are those who just don’t get involved in the first place dept.: “Relatives of victims of Europe’s bloodiest post-war massacre are to sue the United Nations and the Dutch government for ?370 million.” Since no adequate recovery is to be had from Bosnian Serb war criminals for the Srebrenica massacre, reparations lawyers now wish to extract money from the well-meaning neutrals and noncombatants whose bungling efforts failed to prevent it. That should provide a good incentive for anyone to volunteer as peacekeepers in future, no? U.S. lawyers are said to be involved. (“Srebrenica relatives sue UN and Dutch for ?370m”, Daily Telegraph, Nov. 10).
Bin Laden’s gift to lawyers
“Say what you like about Osama bin Laden. He’s done wonders for the defamation bar,” says a British barrister. A group of wealthy Saudi businessmen are engaging in “libel tourism,” suing in British courts to silence American critics. British libel law, unburdened by the First Amendment, puts the burden on defendants to prove that their stories are true; the threat of libel suits often acts to deter journalistic inquiries, but now suits are being aimed at American publishers. The Wall Street Journal faces two lawsuits for a February 2002 report on Saudi support for terror that was reprinted in its European edition. (Michael Isikoff & Mark Hosenball, “Libel Tourism”, Newsweek Web, Oct. 22). (via Postrel)
Tobacco recoupment suit loses in France
Declining to follow our bad example: “A French health authority has lost its attempt to sue four tobacco companies for the cost of treating thousands of cancer patients. In the first case of its kind in France, the national health insurance fund (CPAM) in Saint-Nazaire had demanded 18.6m euros from BAT-Rothmans, Philip Morris, JTI-Reynolds and Altadis. The CPAM said it was the amount it had spent treating more than 1,000 people with smoking-related diseases.” A court threw out the action as ungrounded in law. “‘It is interesting to note that no jurisdiction in Europe has so far allowed this kind of surrogate action against cigarette manufacturers,’ said BAT in a statement.” (“Health fund loses tobacco fight”, BBC, Sept. 29)(see Oct. 7, 1999 (Israel) and Feb. 1-3, 2002 (foreign governments suing in U.S. courts).
Menace of church incense
Just when you thought it was safe to approach the altar: “An Irish Government minister has warned that burning incense in churches could be harmful to the altar boys and girls who help Roman Catholic priests celebrate mass. Jim McDade, who is a former family doctor, said the children were at risk because they inhaled the carcinogenic smoke produced when incense is burnt close by.” (James Helm, “Irish minister links incense to cancer”, BBC, Aug. 22).
U.K.: safety signs, second ropes for rock climbers?
Sounds like an April Fool’s joke, but it’s the wrong time of year dept.: “Because of a bizarre decision by the Health and Safety Executive — that a European Union directive designed to promote safety on building sites must be applied to rock climbers — British mountaineers will have to endanger their lives by fixing two separate ropes up rock faces instead of one. It will also be necessary to fix safety notices on mountains to warn climbers when they are approaching icy or snow-covered surfaces.” The move is said to have dismayed Britain’s leading climbing and mountaineering organizations. (Christopher Booker, “Notebook: HSE has no head for heights”, Daily Telegraph (UK), Aug. 17)(and see Jul. 23, Jun. 30).
EU: Hard hats for trapeze artists?
From Britain’s Daily Telegraph: “Trapeze artists with one of the world’s most famous circuses have been told to start wearing hard hats to comply with new EU safety rules. Jugglers, tightrope walkers and other acrobats with the Moscow State Circus, which is currently touring Britain, have also been instructed to don safety head wear because of European regulations covering workers employed at heights greater than the average stepladder.” Insurers apparently cited the new rules as reason to exclude coverage of future injuries incurred by helmetless performers (who went ahead yesterday and decided to perform without helmets anyway). One obvious question, which we assume the follow-up reporting will address, was whether the insurers were reasonably interpreting the EU directives. (David Sapsted, “Circus acts told to wear hard hats under new EU law”, Daily Telegraph (UK), Jul. 23).
EU: “Ban sought on sexual stereotyping”
According to EUObserver.com, “Brussels is said to be preparing new legislation to monitor sex discrimination outside the workplace. The proposal could lead to a ban on programmes and advertisements that stereotype women or men.” The idea is to ban “images of men and women affecting human dignity and decency”. At the same time, “safeguards on freedom of expression are thought to be included” — very comforting. In the spring of 2002 it was reported that Norway’s Ombudsman for Gender Equality, whose duties include monitoring sexism in toy ads, was proposing to ban a particular toy ad which referred to boys as “tough”. More: Daily Telegraph.