Through her father, a child with asthma sued her apartment complex for exposure to secondhand smoke in outdoor common areas such as near the pool. The court found that the child’s claim for public nuisance could proceed. Although the court did not rule on whether the secondhand smoke in this case rose to the level of nuisance (which would be decided at trial), the court allowed the nuisance claim to move forward because the child had shown that (1) the secondhand smoke affected a substantial number of people; (2) her injuries (aggravation of her asthma) were different from those suffered by the general public (increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer); and (3) the apartment complex was required to maintain its premises in a safe condition. The court also said the child could proceed with her private nuisance claim based on interference with her right to enjoy the rental property. The court dismissed the child’s claim that the apartment complex violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because the ADA does not apply to this type of residential facility.
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
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.
Through her father, a child with asthma sued her apartment complex for exposure to secondhand smoke in outdoor common areas such as near the pool. The court found that the child’s claim for public nuisance could proceed. Although the court did not rule on whether the secondhand smoke in this case rose to the level of nuisance (which would be decided at trial), the court allowed the nuisance claim to move forward because the child had shown that (1) the secondhand smoke affected a substantial number of people; (2) her injuries (aggravation of her asthma) were different from those suffered by the general public (increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer); and (3) the apartment complex was required to maintain its premises in a safe condition. The court also said the child could proceed with her private nuisance claim based on interference with her right to enjoy the rental property. The court dismissed the child’s claim that the apartment complex violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because the ADA does not apply to this type of residential facility.