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 tobacco control advocate appeared on a radio talk show to discuss the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. While in the studio, the advocate alleged that another talk show repeatedly blew cigar smoke in the advocate’s face. The advocate sued for battery, invasion of privacy, and violation of the local law prohibiting smoking in designated public places. The appeals court upheld the advocate’s claim for battery because the host intentionally blew cigar smoke in the advocate’s face, which meets the criteria for battery under Ohio law. The appeals court agreed with the lower court that the claims for trespass and violation of the local smoking law should be dismissed. The advocate’s privacy was not invaded because he willingly entered the radio studio to make a public appearance. Additionally, there is no private right of action for enforcing the local smoking law.