A woman sued the local housing authority because of exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke, which she claimed was drifting in from the apartment below hers. A lower court ruled against the tenant’s claims that the drifting secondhand smoke (1) violated the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (2) violated her lease; and (3) constituted negligence. The court of appeals disagreed, finding that the tenant had provided sufficient evidence to proceed to a trial on her three claims. However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court’s finding that there was no discrimination based on a disability in the case.
Donnelly v. Cohasset Housing Authority, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 1104 (2004).
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.
"In sum, when viewed in the light most favorable to Donnelly, there was evidence from which a fact finder might determine that smoke was infiltrating the apartment from the apartment below, that the smoke was sufficient to cause harm to Donnelly such as to interfere with her quiet enjoyment of the property, that the smoke was infiltrating through a defect for which the authority was responsible, that the authority had taken some action to stop the infiltration, but had declined to take other action, that it was negligent in this respect, and that its failure to take action to stop the infiltration was the cause of the interference. We reverse the order of summary judgment with respect to count I."
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 woman sued the local housing authority because of exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke, which she claimed was drifting in from the apartment below hers. A lower court ruled against the tenant’s claims that the drifting secondhand smoke (1) violated the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (2) violated her lease; and (3) constituted negligence. The court of appeals disagreed, finding that the tenant had provided sufficient evidence to proceed to a trial on her three claims. However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court’s finding that there was no discrimination based on a disability in the case.