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.
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).
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.