The owner of a Maryland townhouse sued his housing cooperative and his neighbors because of exposure to secondhand smoke. The court granted an injunction prohibiting the neighbors from smoking inside their home based on evidence of unhealthy levels of secondhand smoke in the owner’s unit. Because the neighbors already had voluntarily stopped smoking inside their unit they agreed to the injunction preventing them from smoking inside. However, the court refused to grant a temporary injunction prohibiting the neighbors from smoking outside their home because the owner failed to provide evidence that he was harmed by the outdoor secondhand smoke.
Schuman v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc., et al, 2010 WL 8654560 (Md. Cir. Ct. 2010).
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.
An infringement of a protection contained within a statutory environmental law, including public or private nuisance.
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.
"While recognizing the dangers of secondhand smoke and the elevated risk to one’s health, the court has not received evidence in this case demonstrating actual damage to the Plaintiff other than the offensive odor. There is no medical evidence demonstrating an unfavorable health condition that has actually been suffered by Mr. Schuman. No evidence of “materially” diminished property value in Mr. Schuman’s home due to the secondhand smoke by Defendants was presented. The injuries suggested were speculative in nature at this juncture, no “real injury” having been demonstrated. At this point “substantial damages” would not be awarded on such speculation for no way to calculate them has been shown. Though questions remain over the efficacy of such an effort, no evidence of the estimated cost of a complete impermeable barrier covering the hollow wall was offered. While the burden of proof falls upon Mr. Schuman to present some evidence that the nuisance did more than offend the senses, that burden was not met. Trial in this matter may offer something different but for purposes of the preliminary injunction, aside from Mr. and Mrs. Popovic’s consent, the request must fail. Given the testimony presented, under the facts before the court, the court does not find that irreparable harm will result unless a preliminary injunction is granted."
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.
The owner of a Maryland townhouse sued his housing cooperative and his neighbors because of exposure to secondhand smoke. The court granted an injunction prohibiting the neighbors from smoking inside their home based on evidence of unhealthy levels of secondhand smoke in the owner’s unit. Because the neighbors already had voluntarily stopped smoking inside their unit they agreed to the injunction preventing them from smoking inside. However, the court refused to grant a temporary injunction prohibiting the neighbors from smoking outside their home because the owner failed to provide evidence that he was harmed by the outdoor secondhand smoke.