Should there be a literal right to quiet enjoyment?

by Daniel Fink, MD, Chair, The Quiet Coalition

Photo credit: Marianna

I was reminded of the English common law right to quiet enjoyment when I recently exchanged emails with a friend, asking her to read a manuscript I was working on. She replied that the timing was good because she was sitting on her lovely quiet patio on a late summer afternoon, celebrating the return of her home.

She was referring to a recent court case that led to the closure of pickleball courts in a public park right next to her home. She had not been able to use her patio for a few years due to the repetitive impulse noise pickleball play makes, as well as the noise made by those playing and watching the games. Now, she can once again enjoy her patio.

I began to wonder if the English common law right to quiet enjoyment, which means that a landlord cannot interfere with his tenant’s right not to be disturbed on the leased property, could be extended by legislation or by case law to a literal right to quiet enjoyment? After all, noise isn’t just a nuisance any more. Noise is unwanted and/or harmful sound. It’s a health hazard, causing non-auditory health effects such as hypertension, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, stroke and increased mortality. Pickleball noise has recently also been shown to have adverse self-reported health effects.

Pickleball is a great game, a rapidly growing sport in the United States and now in Europe. It deals with two great health problems, social isolation and lack of exercise. But just as smokers can’t force their unwanted secondhand smoke on others, pickleball players shouldn’t be allowed to force their unwanted noise on those living near the courts.

The more I think about it, I think it is time to make the English common law right to quiet enjoyment a literal right to quiet in one’s home. A quieter world will be a better and healthier world for all.