Light pollution from large outdoor LED screens affects normal life. Residents sued the company involved. The court ruled this way
"On November 12, the Supreme People's Court released 10 major influential cases in the environmental resources trial over the past ten years. Among them, the "Li v. a Real Estate Company Environmental Pollution Liability Dispute Case" deserves attention.
According to reports, Li purchased a residence located on Xiejiawan Main Street, Jiulongpo District, Chongqing. The Vientiane City Shopping Center developed and constructed by a real estate company is separated by a road from the residence. An LED display screen is installed on the outer wall of the Vientiane City Shopping Center opposite Li's residence for advertising. The LED display advertising space has been put into operation since its completion in 2014. Promotional materials and video advertisements are played every day, and it produces strong light. Directly entering Li's residential room, it affected Li's normal life. Starting in May 2014, the owners of Li's community and residents around the Mixc Shopping Center complained to the city government's public mailbox many times about the light pollution caused by the large screen in Mixc. The Chongqing Municipal Urban Management Committee stated in the handling that after coordinating with a real estate company, it decided to take corrective measures, but the company did not fulfill its promise. Therefore, Li filed a lawsuit with the People's Court.
The effective judgment of the court held that a certain real estate company, as the builder and operator of the Vientiane City Shopping Center, set up an LED display on the exterior wall of the shopping mall opposite Li's residence to play advertisements, promotional materials, etc., and the strong light generated directly entered Li's residential room.Based on the evidence such as photos and video materials provided, as well as the situation of organizing both parties to go to the scene for inspection, it can be concluded that the bright light generated by the defendant's use of LED displays to play advertisements and promotional materials has exceeded the range that is generally tolerated by the general public. In terms of the public's cognitive rules and personal feelings, this bright light will seriously affect the normal work and study of neighboring people, interfere with the normal life and rest of surrounding residents, and constitute light pollution caused by strong light. A real estate company's use of LED screens to play advertisements and promotional materials that caused light pollution has constituted environmental pollution, which has damaged the environmental rights and interests of Li's residence and caused damage to Li's physical and mental health. Even if Li has not yet shown obvious symptoms, it is an objective fact that his life has been intruded by light pollution and his environmental rights and interests have been harmed. Therefore, a real estate company should bear civil responsibilities such as stopping the infringement and eliminating obstruction.
The court ruled in accordance with the law that a real estate company should immediately stop operating an LED display on the exterior wall of Li's residence in the Vientiane City Shopping Center that caused light pollution to Li: the LED display should be turned on after 8:30 from May 1 to September 30. , the closing time should be before 22:00; between October 1 and April 30 of the following year, the opening time should be after 8:30, and the closing time should be before 21:50; the brightness value of the LED display after 19:00 every day shall not be higher than 600cd/㎡.
ANNA