El Dorado Hills couple sues neighbor over cigarette smoke

[downunderwunda]

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.

As I have stated, I am a smoker. If someone approaches me & asks, I will usually put it out, depending on their tone. However, it is legal for me to smoke & I am in my yard, im sorry if it wafts into your house, but there is an easy solution. clse the window or door for 10 minutes. Problem solved.

Smokers are not out just to piss you off.

Until they make it illegal, harden up.

 

[Akulahawk]

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.

Yes, provided that they "give way" to a party that doesn't meet the qualification. What isn't mentioned in the article is the ages of all those persons living there. If everyone is over 45... and the mother (primary resident) is over 55... guess what? They're all legally living there. That may or may not be the case, but it's certainly possible.

Here's the relevant law for ages:

Any such limitation
shall not be more exclusive than to require that one person in
residence in each dwelling unit may be required to be a senior
citizen and that each other resident in the same dwelling unit may be
required to be a qualified permanent resident, a permitted health
care resident, or a person under 55 years of age whose occupancy is
permitted under subdivision (h) of this section or under subdivision
(b) of Section 51.4.

That would depend on property lines and how the California law "nothing offensive to the senses" will be interpreted.

Yep. Nuisance law. It possibly qualifies as a private nuisance, unless it can be shown that more than that one neighboring property is affected. Then it would become a "public nuisance". Who knows, the suit may actually survive to trial.

 

[mycrofft]

If it intrudes, is reasonsble and a compromise cannot be reached or it is dangerous..

Suit time.
And I don't mean C&R Clothiers!

 

[rescue99]

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?

I am not a smoker and I agree with you Downunder. Outside in your own back yard is your business. Everyone has a bad habit that annoys or is potentially harmful to others....we need to get over it. As long as people demonstrate a reasonable effort to be polite when they smoke, we need to be a more tolerant. At least they aren't slobbering drunks claiming the right to "celebrate." There is nothing fun about being subjected to it and the habit is a drain on society. Do we have the right to drink? Yep..sure do. Therefore, it is me who must adjust.

 

[Sasha]

As I have stated, I am a smoker. If someone approaches me & asks, I will usually put it out, depending on their tone. However, it is legal for me to smoke & I am in my yard, im sorry if it wafts into your house, but there is an easy solution. clse the window or door for 10 minutes. Problem solved.

Smokers are not out just to piss you off.

Until they make it illegal, harden up.

Sorry, your right to smoke ends at other people's right not to breathe in second hand smoke. You want to smoke cigarettes? Keep your smoke away from others, or smoke inside your house. I have no sympathy for smoker's rights, they are not just impacting their own health but others around them as well.

 

[rescue99]

Sorry, your right to smoke ends at other people's right not to breathe in second hand smoke. You want to smoke cigarettes? Keep your smoke away from others, or smoke inside your house. I have no sympathy for smoker's rights, they are not just impacting their own health but others around them as well.

I feel the exact same way about drinking. I am NOT a smoker yet, believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Unless we prohibit the public and private use of ALL disgusting substances that directly or indirectly harm those around us....such as being stinkin drunk in public for example, we have to be more tolerant period. As long as it is legal, there isn't a whole lot else we can do except punish those who violate safe practice perhaps.

I hope we're as eager to revive alcohol prohibition right along with a ban on smoking. Alcohol murders far exceed drive by smoking deaths. Alcohol related crimes far exceed smoking crimes in general. Every time someone steps behind the controls of a vehicle with a single drink in their system he/she violates the safety of virtually everyone around them. The risk isn't limited to the closest neighbor. Right is right. Ban one bad habit, ban em all.

 

[Sasha]

I feel the exact same way about drinking. I am NOT a smoker yet, believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Unless we prohibit the public and private use of ALL disgusting substances that directly or indirectly harm those around us....such as being stinkin drunk in public for example, we have to be more tolerant period. As long as it is legal, there isn't a whole lot else we can do except punish those who violate safe practice perhaps.

I hope we're as eager to revive alcohol prohibition right along with a ban on smoking. Alcohol murders far exceed drive by smoking deaths. Alcohol related crimes far exceed smoking crimes in general. Every time someone steps behind the controls of a vehicle with a single drink in their system he/she violates the safety of virtually everyone around them. The risk isn't limited to the closest neighbor. Right is right. Ban one bad habit, ban em all.

You CAN get in trouble for public drunkness. You also can get arrested for beating your wife intoxicated or not. It is illegal to drive drunk. There are safety percautions. They tried to ban drinking a long time ago, prohibition ring a bell? It actually increased alcoholism rather than decreasing it. So they limit and regulate alcohol consumption and criminalize dangerous alcohol related behaviors.

I have yet to see a smoker go to jail for posioning their kids lungs with that crap, yet a child can be taken away from a parent with alcoholism.

 

[bunkie]

As I have stated, I am a smoker. If someone approaches me & asks, I will usually put it out, depending on their tone. However, it is legal for me to smoke & I am in my yard, im sorry if it wafts into your house, but there is an easy solution. clse the window or door for 10 minutes. Problem solved.

Smokers are not out just to piss you off.

Until they make it illegal, harden up.

I was married a smoker for 6 years. He quit for a few years but is smoking again. I consider myself quite hard on the subject.

 

[VentMedic]

I have yet to see a smoker go to jail for posioning their kids lungs with that crap, yet a child can be taken away from a parent with alcoholism.

It is illegal in some states to smoke with a child in the car.

Also, if a child is brought to the ED with respiratory problems and a high carboxy Hb level, that can be used against the patients if the living situation is questionable and if serious enough, they can be charged with child endangerment especially if they know the child has a preexisting condition and they have already been counseled.

 

[downunderwunda]

Sorry, your right to smoke ends at other people's right not to breathe in second hand smoke. You want to smoke cigarettes? Keep your smoke away from others, or smoke inside your house. I have no sympathy for smoker's rights, they are not just impacting their own health but others around them as well.

Then make it illegal to smoke sasha.

Then are you willing to accept the increases in taxes?

What I am saying is outdoors it usually will dissipate before it effects anyone.

If we get to this point, & it is offensive, then do we ban farting in public?

 

[VentMedic]

It is a little more than just the offensive smell.

Since the Heart Lung Bill, FDs have gotten better rates on insurance.

Hospitals that have banned hiring employees that smoke and giving notice to those that have failed to quit after given ample time and free services have also reaped the benefits as have the employees with reduced insurance premiums. This is also experienced by many other companies that are not involved in health care. Many of the high tech firms went with smoke free employees many years ago.

 

[rescue99]

It is illegal in some states to smoke with a child in the car.

Also, if a child is brought to the ED with respiratory problems and a high carboxy Hb level, that can be used against the patients if the living situation is questionable and if serious enough, they can be charged with child endangerment especially if they know the child has a preexisting condition and they have already been counseled.

I think you are making my case...if a substance is offensive or a risk to the safety and welfare of others...why not go all the way and ban it all? I both understand and respect a person's right to consume legal substances within the parameters of the law. I hate brussel sprouts and I'm highly allergic to shell fish too! I'd dearly love to ban both but, both are legal. What to do, what to do??? <_< Arbitrary prohibition isn't the answer. Tolerance and being respectful of those around us is a reasonable expectation however. Makes much more sense to defend that if we really want to defend a cause.

 

[VentMedic]

I think you are making my case...if a substance is offensive or a risk to the safety and welfare of others...why not go all the way and ban it all? I both understand and respect a person's right to consume legal substances within the parameters of the law. I hate brussel sprouts and I'm highly allergic to shell fish too! I'd dearly love to ban both but, both are legal. What to do, what to do??? <_< Arbitrary prohibition isn't the answer. Tolerance and being respectful of those around us is a reasonable expectation however. Makes much more sense to defend that if we really want to defend a cause.

As with alcohol, which is legal, you have the right to consume it as long as it does not become offensive or endanger others. One has to differentiate between the willful actions of a person and the substance itself which is now the argument pro marijuana in California. If you forced a child to eat shell fish knowing they were allergic to them, you would be responsible for the action and the shell fish would not be the ones to blame. If you intentionally blow smoke into your asthmatic child's face to where the child may become ventilator dependent with permanent health issues, your actions are what you were in control of.

 

[mycrofft]

We need a tobacco diversion program

Case could be made for ADA protection if tobacco addiction is perceived as a handicap.

 

[Seaglass]

Smoking is disgusting and harmful, but I won't complain unless it's seriously bothering me. Same goes for people with heavy perfume. In public, it's also a case of whether I need to be there or can leave, and who was there first.

I'd never support banning anything you do to yourself in private, but public bans on smoking make plenty of sense to me.

Case could be made for ADA protection if tobacco addiction is perceived as a handicap.

I don't think any other addictions are (someone correct me if I'm wrong on that...), while asthma and allergies have already been established as disabilities. In a direct conflict, I suspect the condition with the established history of being covered would win out.

 

[VentMedic]

I'd never support banning anything you do to yourself in private, but public bans on smoking make plenty of sense to me.

Do you approve of the Heart and Lung Act for FFs and other Public Safety Officers? Do you understand why that Bill was passed and is needed?

 

[Seaglass]

Do you approve of the Heart and Lung Act for FFs and other Public Safety Officers? Do you understand why that Bill was passed and is needed?

I'm actually not familiar with it, and not finding anything with full text online, except for something in PA that doesn't seem all that relevant. Would you mind posting a link?