A California condominium resident smoked cigars on his balcony. One of his neighbors claimed that the smoke drifted into his condominium. During an argument, the neighbor allegedly assaulted the cigar smoker, who sued for the assault. The neighbor then sued for negligence and nuisance based on the drifting smoke, as well as for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The court of appeal ruled that the neighbor’s claims for negligence and nuisance could proceed but the claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution could not. The court did not find that the drifting cigar smoke constituted negligence or a nuisance but that the neighbor had stated enough information to introduce evidence to prove his claims at trial.
Babbitt v. Superior Court, 2004 WL 1068817, Super.Ct.No. INC029645 (2004).
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
A claim for violating a law protecting tenants or home owners, such as the covenant of quiet enjoyment, the warranty of habitability, constructive eviction, or trespass. For example, a tenant could sue a neighbor or the property owner when exposed to drifting secondhand smoke in their home.
Any combustible tobacco product that is designed to be smoked – other than cigarettes – including cigars, cigarillos, little cigars, blunts, and bidis or beedis (small, flavored filterless Indian cigarettes).
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"With respect to DiPuzo’s claims for personal injury, as incorporated in the negligence cause of action, the dangers of
“secondhand smoke” are not imaginary, and the risks to health of excessive exposure are being increasingly recognized in court. (See, e.g., Helling v. McKinney (1993) 509 U.S. 25, 33-34 [prisoner’s suit].) The Legislature has adopted the California Indoor Clean Air Act of 1976 to protect residents from these dangers (Health & Saf.Code, §§ 118875 ff.), and the electorate enacted the California Children and Families Act of 1998, (Health & Saf.Code, §§ 130100 ff.) known as Proposition 10, based at least in part upon the argument that secondhand smoke was responsible for a substantial number of serious respiratory tract infections in infants and children. (See California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California (2003)109 Cal.App.4th 792, 810.)
Whether or not recovery has previously been allowed in tort for “secondhand smoke” injuries is not dispositive. “ ‘ “The
inherent capacity of the common law for growth and change is its most significant feature. Its development has been
determined by the social needs of the community which it serves. It is constantly expanding and developing in keeping with advancing civilization and the new conditions and progress of society....” ‘ “ (Soldano v. O’Daniels (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 443, 453.) “ ‘The law of torts is anything but static....’ “ (Id. at p. 454.) However, we do not decide here that a private cause of action for exposure to secondhand smoke will lie irrespective of the amount of smoke and the circumstances under which it is created; we are merely unable to say, as a matter of law, that such exposure can never be actionable. We also acknowledge that we lack the scientific expertise to opine on the subject of whether one smoker can create a substantial risk of harm, and the record at this stage is barren on the point."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A California condominium resident smoked cigars on his balcony. One of his neighbors claimed that the smoke drifted into his condominium. During an argument, the neighbor allegedly assaulted the cigar smoker, who sued for the assault. The neighbor then sued for negligence and nuisance based on the drifting smoke, as well as for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The court of appeal ruled that the neighbor’s claims for negligence and nuisance could proceed but the claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution could not. The court did not find that the drifting cigar smoke constituted negligence or a nuisance but that the neighbor had stated enough information to introduce evidence to prove his claims at trial.