Court Rejects Residents' Demand for Sound Barrier Along Major Highway
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
A Herzliya court dismissed a lawsuit by ten residents demanding an acoustic barrier against traffic noise on Highway 2, ruling they failed to prove unreasonable noise levels and that the nuisance claim was context-dependent. The residents were ordered to pay 80,000 shekels in costs.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Court rejected residents' demand for a sound barrier on Highway 2.
- Residents failed to prove noise levels were legally unreasonable.
- Judge cited context and burden of proof for noise complaints.
- Recent roadwork actually decreased noise levels, court found.
- Residents ordered to pay 80,000 shekels in legal costs.
A Magistrate's Court in Herzliya has dismissed a lawsuit filed by ten local residents seeking the construction of an acoustic barrier between their homes and Highway 2, a major route connecting Tel Aviv and Haifa. The residents claimed excessive noise from traffic was unbearable and demanded the Ministry of Transportation and Netivei Yisrael (Israel's National Roads Company) build the barrier. They cited a 2001 plan by Netivei Yisrael, then known as Ma'atz, for a barrier that was never implemented.
While the residents' expert testified that noise levels exceeded legal limits, the court-appointed expert noted there is no mandatory noise limit for vehicle traffic. The Ministry of Environmental Protection's policy aims for noise below 70 decibels, but measurements near the plaintiffs' homes reached 74.2 decibels during peak hours. The judge, David Yitzhak, ruled that a barrier is only required if traffic noise significantly increases due to roadwork. He noted that recent work on Highway 2, converting a lane to a bus-only route, actually reduced noise by half a decibel.
Furthermore, the judge stated that if such an obligation existed and was breached by the state and Netivei Yisrael, the residents should have filed an administrative petition, not a civil lawsuit. The core issue, he explained, is the undefined legal term "unreasonable noise." The burden of proof for excessive or unreasonable noise from vehicles rests on the plaintiffs, who failed to meet it. Three residents submitted affidavits but did not appear for cross-examination, and the residents' expert's measurements were deemed insufficient.
Judge Yitzhak also pointed out that most plaintiffs chose to buy homes near a major intercity highway, and while this doesn't negate a claim of unreasonable noise, it places a higher burden of proof on them. He added that the concept of a nuisance is context-dependent; noise considered a nuisance in a rural setting might not be so in a major urban artery. The judge concluded that the lawsuit was based on the perception that measured noise exceeded alleged maximum limits, rather than proof of actual interference with reasonable use and enjoyment of their properties. The residents were ordered to pay 80,000 shekels in legal costs.