El Dorado Hills couple sues neighbor over cigarette smoke

Griff

Griff

Forum Crew Member
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Found this on Fark.com, link is here:

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2297196.html

I figured it belonged here since it really isn't EMS news, but it is interesting nonetheless. I'm torn on the issue, myself; I am not a smoker and I dislike the smell/etc, but litigation (in this case, at least) seems a bit extreme to me. Any legal minds in here think that this case has any merit? What are the implications of any precedent (either way) that will be set by this case?
 
Griff said:
Found this on Fark.com, link is here:

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2297196.html

I figured it belonged here since it really isn't EMS news, but it is interesting nonetheless. I'm torn on the issue, myself; I am not a smoker and I dislike the smell/etc, but litigation (in this case, at least) seems a bit extreme to me. Any legal minds in here think that this case has any merit? What are the implications of any precedent (either way) that will be set by this case?
Click to expand...

Amazing how people will sue over anything these days. Seriously, I don't see smoke really being a problem. If it is blowing from one yard into another house (which I true find amazing) then either they have absolutely no tolerance, or it is terribly poor design by the architects. Honestly, I think that any merit in the case will fall upon the testimonials of other neighbors. I don't openly support or discourage smoking myself, what people do is their own choice. How would I feel if someone told me I couldn't chew every now and then?
 
RuralEMT said:
Amazing how people will sue over anything these days. Seriously, I don't see smoke really being a problem. If it is blowing from one yard into another house (which I true find amazing) then either they have absolutely no tolerance, or it is terribly poor design by the architects. Honestly, I think that any merit in the case will fall upon the testimonials of other neighbors. I don't openly support or discourage smoking myself, what people do is their own choice. How would I feel if someone told me I couldn't chew every now and then?
Click to expand...

Cigarette smoke is bad for you. It is a problem. Second hand smoke is bad for you too. I chose not to smoke because of the bad health effects, it's not right for a smoker to contaminate MY lungs and cardiovascular system because of their poor choices. As a smoker you have a responsiblity to keep your smoke away from others. Can't handle it, don't smoke.

IOM Report Confirms Secondhand Smoke Causes Heart Attacks in Nonsmokers
Full Article: http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/iom-report-on-secondhand-smoke.html
(October 15, 2009)—
Statement of Charles D. Connor, American Lung Association President and CEO:

A new report released by the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM), Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence, confirms secondhand smoke exposure to be a significant cause of acute coronary events, including heart attacks, and that there is no safe level of exposure. The report also concluded that relatively brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause acute coronary events.
Click to expand...

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healtheffects.html

The Effects of Secondhand Smoke on Our Health
Full Article: http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondhandsmoke/a/secondhandsmoke.htm
Secondhand smoke is a toxic cocktail consisting of poisons and carcinogens. There are over 4000 chemical compounds in secondhand smoke; 200 of which are known to be poisonous, and upwards of 60 have been identified as carcinogens.

When a cigarette is smoked, about half of the smoke is inhaled / exhaled (mainstream smoke) by the smoker and the other half floats around in the air (sidestream smoke). The combination of mainstream and sidestream smoke makes up environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).
Click to expand...
How Secondhand Smoke Can Affect the Heart
  • Heart disease mortality - an estimated 35,000 to 62,000 deaths are caused from heart disease in people who are not current smokers, but who are exposed to ETS
  • Acute and chronic coronary heart disease
  • Passive smoking has been linked to the narrowing of the carotid arteries, which carry blood to the brain
  • Exposure to secondhand smoke hastens hardening of the arteries, a condition known as artherosclerosis
  • Continual exposure to ETS has been shown to nearly double the chance of heart attack
Click to expand...
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/health_effects/heart_disease/flash/index.htm
http://www.healthlinkbc.ca/healthfiles/hfile30a.stm
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/20/2684
 
An argument I saw in the comments section involved cigarette smoke versus automobile exhaust. Basically, "exhaust fumes are bad for you too but we don't sue people for driving their cars by our house". What delineates medical harm to others? Is it possible that some actions are less accepted in society because not everyone participates in those actions? Everyone drives a car but not everyone smokes; either of these activities could detrimentally affect the health of someone nearby, but disproportionate attention is paid to one over the other.

I personally would love to never have to breathe secondhand smoke ever again, but I am concerned that this sort of litigation is a step in the wrong direction in the context of civil liberties. I'm kind of playing Devil's advocate here, but I do think that it is a slippery slope to be sure.
 
It is sad when the hazards of smoking must be explained to those who are supposed to be in a health care related profession. There is definitely a need for at least college level A&P for entry into EMT school.

Griff said:
An argument I saw in the comments section involved cigarette smoke versus automobile exhaust. Basically, "exhaust fumes are bad for you too but we don't sue people for driving their cars by our house". What delineates medical harm to others? Is it possible that some actions are less accepted in society because not everyone participates in those actions? Everyone drives a car but not everyone smokes; either of these activities could detrimentally affect the health of someone nearby, but disproportionate attention is paid to one over the other.

I personally would love to never have to breathe secondhand smoke ever again, but I am concerned that this sort of litigation is a step in the wrong direction in the context of civil liberties. I'm kind of playing Devil's advocate here, but I do think that it is a slippery slope to be sure.
Click to expand...


We do have regulations for cars and pollution. If your car fails to meet standards, you will be ticketed and that car parked until it is brought up to standard. We also have regulations for idling a parked car, bus or ambulance near certain areas. Most EDs will not allow an ambulance to sit idling outside of their doors. We also have petitions and lawsuits against building major highways near schools. We have neighborhoods fighting the trucking routes for heavy commerce due to pollution. We have many organizations monitoring the health of children and pollution. this is nothing new and some need to start reading more medical journals other than just looking at the pretty pictures in JEMS to see what is happening in healthcare and the environmental issues.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm disappointed. The Fark headline for that article sucked.
 
VentMedic said:
It is sad when the hazards of smoking must be explained to those who are supposed to be in a health care related profession. There is definitely a need for at least college level A&P for entry into EMT school.




We do have regulations for cars and pollution. If your car fails to meet standards, you will be ticketed and that car parked until it is brought up to standard. We also have regulations for idling a parked car, bus or ambulance near certain areas. Most EDs will not allow an ambulance to sit idling outside of their doors. We also have petitions and lawsuits against building major highways near schools. We have neighborhoods fighting the trucking routes for heavy commerce due to pollution. We have many organizations monitoring the health of children and pollution. this is nothing new and some need to start reading more medical journals other than just looking at the pretty pictures in JEMS to see what is happening in healthcare and the environmental issues.
Click to expand...

Nobody is questioning the detrimental health effects of cigarette smoke. The issue concerns civil litigation against a citizen's otherwise legal behavior on private property. I'm not sure what A&P has to do with that. ^_^
 
Griff said:
Nobody is questioning the detrimental health effects of cigarette smoke. The issue concerns civil litigation against a citizen's otherwise legal behavior on private property.
Click to expand...

Have you even paid any attention to the arguments for smoke free restaurants, parks and cities? How about apartment buildings, office buildings and hospitals?

I'm not sure what A&P has to do with that.
Click to expand...

Did you read the other posts in this thread?
 
Ah. Looking further into the article reveals that the owner of the smoker's house (the defendant) is the only one in the household eligible to own a home in that community. The other residents are family members that all smoke. So it is feasible that three 1-2 pack/day smokers could create enough smoke to be a hazard, and that seems like a reasonable complaint to me. The household is composed of the mother, the daughter, the son, and the son-in-law. :rolleyes:

I would wager (speculative) that the issue goes much deeper than smoking, however.
 
Griff said:
Ah. Looking further into the article reveals that the owner of the smoker's house (the defendant) is the only one in the household eligible to own a home in that community. The other residents are family members that all smoke. So it is feasible that three 1-2 pack/day smokers could create enough smoke to be a hazard, and that seems like a reasonable complaint to me. The household is composed of the mother, the daughter, the son, and the son-in-law. :rolleyes:

I would wager (speculative) that the issue goes much deeper than smoking, however.
Click to expand...

As it always does.
 
If the other members of the household are not 55, they may be asked to leave the community unless one can prove they are a primary care giver to the mother who owns the house. If they are living there without the approval of the Board of that community, they will be in violation and the owner will face stiff penalties. When someone buys into these communities, they sign a lengthy contract and know the consequences if any violations occur.
 
EL Dorado HIlls is litigious and also downwind from Sacto and Bay Area.

One person painted her house green instead of tan and instead of talking with her the homeowners' assoc. (representing a SMALL percentage) took her to court a few years ago. A nearby personal aquaintance was sued for $80K because she and her husband cut a tree on their own property, but the neighbor says it was part of the view from his house and so reduced its value.:wacko:

ED HIlls has other concerns. It sucks up the southern half of Saramento's pollution (Auburn gets the rest), and EDH sits on serpentine rock deposits which release a form of asbestos when disturbed. Another pair of reasons not to smoke there (as well as brush fires).
 
I am a smoker. I know the damage it does to me.

What I am doing is, under the law legal.

I smoke outdoors to minimise the impact on my family.

I agree on restrictions on smoking indoors in workplaces, cafe's etc. However, in my own yard, outdoors, why should I not have the freedom to light up then? What will be next, someone sues because the person next door can be seen from 1 window of the house sunbaking nude & they disagree with their body shape & find it offensive?
 
Griff said:
Ah. Looking further into the article reveals that the owner of the smoker's house (the defendant) is the only one in the household eligible to own a home in that community. The other residents are family members that all smoke. So it is feasible that three 1-2 pack/day smokers could create enough smoke to be a hazard, and that seems like a reasonable complaint to me. The household is composed of the mother, the daughter, the son, and the son-in-law. :rolleyes:

I would wager (speculative) that the issue goes much deeper than smoking, however.
Click to expand...

Hog wash! Smoke isn't pleasant, especially cigar smoke..yuck. I dispise booze, the smell, the taste, the way people behave when they drink. Not to mention all of the health affects of booze. It's a nuisance and a serious health risk yet, if someone drinks it is their choice. Despite the health and welfare affects on everyone booze comes into contact with, it's still legal. Similarly, a person smoking in their own back yard is certainly not something worth wasting the courts time over. A responsible judge would dismiss it as frivolous.

Perhaps tossing the free loaders out who shouldn't be living there is more of an angle in reality but, it won't prevent any visitors from stepping outside for a smoke. ^_^
 
VentMedic said:
If the other members of the household are not 55, they may be asked to leave the community unless one can prove they are a primary care giver to the mother who owns the house. If they are living there without the approval of the Board of that community, they will be in violation and the owner will face stiff penalties. When someone buys into these communities, they sign a lengthy contract and know the consequences if any violations occur.
Click to expand...
That is not always the case. Age restricted communities can require that a primary resident be of age, but they may or may not be able to restrict all members of that family that do not meet the age requirement from living there. If they do restrict all residents to a particular age, it would have to be written into the contract or CC&R's that way. If there's no such provision in the contract or CC&R's, if they were to be "asked" to leave, that would give the residents a cause of action against the HOA.
 
As to the lawsuit, there may or may not be a civil case... but I'd almost wager that the suit will be tossed out.
 
Akulahawk said:
That is not always the case. Age restricted communities can require that a primary resident be of age, but they may or may not be able to restrict all members of that family that do not meet the age requirement from living there. If they do restrict all residents to a particular age, it would have to be written into the contract or CC&R's that way. If there's no such provision in the contract or CC&R's, if they were to be "asked" to leave, that would give the residents a cause of action against the HOA.
Click to expand...

If you look at this community, it does follow the laws of age restriction to the letter in their real estate notices.

California is like Florida and Arizona in this respect about the disclosure of the restriction in their bylaws and their carefully worded real estate announcements.

There also have been enough previous challenges of these age restrictions to where these communities now know about advertisement and their bylaws stressing disclosure of the ages of all living at that residence. Once they give way to someone 54.5 y/o, they have opened the door to toddlers.
 
Akulahawk said:
As to the lawsuit, there may or may not be a civil case... but I'd almost wager that the suit will be tossed out.
Click to expand...

That would depend on property lines and how the California law "nothing offensive to the senses" will be interpreted.
 
I hate the smell of pine-sol. It irritates my asthma and makes me queasy. I lived in a duplex and my neighbor happened to love the stuff. Every single time she cleaned with it I could smell it in my house.

Smoke is a whole different soapbox for me. When I was out trick or treating with my kids I walked through countless clouds of smoke as people walked with their kids, sucking on cigarettes. You want to contaminate your kid I'll call you a crappy parent, but you willingly contaminate mine and its fighting turf there. I asked a few of them to put their cigarettes out. By the end of the night I was in full scale asthma attack territory. So if my neighbors smoke is coming to my house, I'd def do something about it. I dont want to breathe it and I certainly dont want my kids breathing it.

You want to pollute yourself, by all means. Have at it, but you wont pollute my kids or me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top