Pitter-patter of little feet can cost you in Tokyo
A court in Tokyo has slapped the father of a young child with an order to pay 360,000 yen to a neighbor who complained that the sound of the child’s footsteps constitute noise pollution.
“The footsteps surpassed tolerable limits,” Yasushi Nakamura, judge at the Tokyo District Court, said in handing down the ruling.
The plaintiff, who lives in Tokyo’s Itabashi-ku, filed a suit against the father demanding 2.4 million yen in damages because of disturbances caused by the loud footsteps of the toddler who moved into the second floor of the same condo complex around April 2004. His wife also suffered from insomnia because of the noise.
The plaintiff had complained about the annoying sound to the father of the 3-to-4-year-old toddler, but the father ignored him. The plaintiff then placed a noise meter in his home and recorded that the footsteps upstairs measured 50 to 65 decibels.
hi zakiah
FRCKN GAY
According to Wikipedia, a TV 1 m away makes 60 dB of noise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sound_pressure_and_sound_pressure_levels
Outrageous. It is amazing what some people think they have a right to complain about. If the plaintiff needs so much quiet, he should not live in an apartment. A little noise from the neighbors is a part of group living.
October 5th, 2007 at 1:46 amIf the defendant can appeal, I think he should (though I have no idea on what grounds; perhaps the defendant can at least demand to have the volume assessed by an independent expert or at least be allowed to use his own noise meter).
I also find it strange that the ruling resulted in a fine. (Why not an injunction?) And what was the formula for coming up with the amount of the fine? It seems rather excessive for a Japanese tort case. (Contrast: In the case of Miyoko Kawahara, who blasted rock music at her neighbor’s home for over 2 years, she was convicted for a criminal offense punishable by up to 10 years (in her case, 20 months) in prison and a fine of up to ¥300,000 (I don’t know what the figure was in her case). I recognize that this is, to a degree, a comparison of apples and oranges, but still….)
And I agree with papa. The plaintiff should move out. (Or perhaps an easy solution would be to have the plaintiff and the defendant switch apartments?)
October 5th, 2007 at 3:01 amI have to pipe up to at least 15 Dbs and ask ‘why’. Why does the neighbour, who hasn’t caused the disturbance, have to be the one to move?
60 to 65 dB of noise isn’t “a little” and it sure doesn’t become ‘white noise’ – especially if it comes in sporatic bursts and there’s never a pattern to it (i.e. you *know* the noise will stop or be rare after 7PM).
Everyone living in an apartment-type complex has to be reasonable. That means taking some consideration of your neighbours into account. The plaintiff didn’t sound unreasonable – he just wanted the noisey neighbour to acknowledge the problem and do something reasonable.
Obviously, the guy didn’t acknowledge or try to mitigate the noise or the judgement would probably have gone the other way.
How hard could it have been to put carpets down? Or be considerate enough to make an effort to keep the noise down after certain hours?
So who’s being unreasonable?
Suggesting that the plaintiff should have moved doesn’t take into consideration that he may have owned the condo unit and didn’t want to sell. And imagine how much longer and at what reduced price he may have had to sell if buyers looking at the place got an earful of the noise during a tour of the apartment.
The weird thing I get from the ruling is that the ruling specifically states “”The father should have responded sincerely (to the plaintiff’s complaint) and improved the family’s lifestyle through disciplining the toddler.”
Well, yes, the father *should* have responded sincerely but I don’t think it’s a judge’s call on how it should have been done. Like it’s now a parenting issue and not a simple noise complaint issue that could have been resolved by double-padded carpets and some consideration… . That just sounded weird.
Anyway, aren’t there strata councils and by-laws in condo units? Shouldn’t the noise issue have been dealt with quickly through the strata council? Or maybe it was (which is why the family moved out) and the plaintiff just wanted some financial restitution for the suffering caused by the noise.
October 5th, 2007 at 5:33 amMy first impulse here was sympathy for the father, and spite for the plaintiff. I suspect, though, that there was more to this – such as an unresponsive father who never bothered disciplining his child. The story said this went on at all hours of the night.
I have seen horribly negligent parents, and that may be why the judge slapped the father with a fine.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:30 amI know what it’s like to have hyperactive kid, relentlessly pounding the floorboards in the apartment above. It ain’t nice, it gets to the stage were you want to strap giant speakers to the ceiling and blast them with something painful, like “Prince”.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:50 amIt’s a strange report…
As mentioned, the ruling that discipline was necessary but not provided is a little excessive for the judge. As Betty and you all mentioned, it’s tough being a parent, I know. And 3 or 4 year-old kids are a tough lot to handle. I know. It’s the all hours of the night thing that is the big problem. I’ve lived through similar problems in several apartments in several regions of Japan. Parents think nothing of having kids up running around the apartment between midnight and three or four a.m. Let them sleep in the day, at daycare or kindergarten. There are quiet periods, it’s just that these times are when everyone is away at work, so no-one benefits.
I’ve spoken with parents whose kids run around in the wee hours, and they have no concept that it’s bothersome to others, and no guilt or remorse. The general attitude is stuff it! You don’t like it, you deal with it. Zero compromise, zero feeling that they have to cooperate with the families living communally. We are all free, but our rights end where another’s nose begins.
The general attitude to noise in Japan is ignore it because we can’t change it, and we all have to get along. The general attitude to noise in my country is try to minimize it, we all have to get along. The purpose is the same – to get along – but the thinking of how to go about it is completely different. As Japan’s urban areas get even more crowded, and buildings even flimsier and poorer at blocking noise (let alone earthquakes), the thinking of “we should be considerate of others around here” needs to grow.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:29 amComing at this from a different angle, I find it utterly remarkable that this case was published under “national news”. In most other countries on earth, I can only assume that this type of story would simply never have been run no matter how slow a news day it were.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:34 amSomebody needs to drag this judge out of his chambers
October 6th, 2007 at 12:36 amand beat him severely about the head and shoulders.
People, don’t get fooled : this is nothing but a disguised ad for big and thick hello kitty slipers.
October 6th, 2007 at 4:08 amVittel’s got it right. This is just another case of Kitty litter.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pmThe colossal sense of entitlement that parents have is amazing.
October 7th, 2007 at 2:45 pm