A condominium landlord sought to evict a tenant and her co-tenant based on excessive smoking, which the landlord believed created a nuisance for other tenants. The tenant argued that any problems due to cigarette smoke were caused by the landlord’s failure to keep the unit in good condition. At trial, the jury ruled in favor of the landlord. In a later decision, a court denied the tenant’s request for a new trial. The tenant subsequently moved out so the landlord’s claim for possession of the property was no longer relevant.
Harwood Capital Corporation v. Carey, Boston Housing Ct., No. 05-SP-00187 (2005).
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.
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.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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.
"I am satisfied that my rulings on evidentiary objections and motions during the course of the trial (and during the charge conference) were not erroneous. The instructions I gave to the jury before it began its deliberations incorporated the correct legal principles pertaining to all relevant claims and defenses, including the elements of the plaintiff's possession claim based upon breach of the lease, the law of nuisance as that term is used in the condominium's rules and regulations (the terms of which were incorporated into the lease), and the elements of the defendant's defense based upon her allegation that the plaintiff was responsible for any nuisance that might have resulted from cigarette fumes, odors or smoke because the plaintiff failed to maintain the premises in good repair. Further, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to (1) support the jury's verdict, and (2) negate any suggestion that the verdict was the product of the jury's bias, misapprehension or prejudice. Finally, the defendant has vacated the premises, and therefore, the issue of possession is now moot."
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 condominium landlord sought to evict a tenant and her co-tenant based on excessive smoking, which the landlord believed created a nuisance for other tenants. The tenant argued that any problems due to cigarette smoke were caused by the landlord’s failure to keep the unit in good condition. At trial, the jury ruled in favor of the landlord. In a later decision, a court denied the tenant’s request for a new trial. The tenant subsequently moved out so the landlord’s claim for possession of the property was no longer relevant.