An individual sued the tenant in the adjoining office, the building owner, and the property management company for smoke drifting into his office from the adjoining office. The court found that the complaining tenant could proceed to trial with his claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Additionally, the court found that the tenant could proceed with his nuisance claim against his neighbor but not against the building owner or property management company because they did not have control of the property. The court dismissed the tenant’s claims for violation of a state and local law regulating smoking because the state law does not allow for a private cause of action and the local law allows smoking in a private office if no more than three people are present, as was the case here.
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.
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.
An individual sued the tenant in the adjoining office, the building owner, and the property management company for smoke drifting into his office from the adjoining office. The court found that the complaining tenant could proceed to trial with his claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Additionally, the court found that the tenant could proceed with his nuisance claim against his neighbor but not against the building owner or property management company because they did not have control of the property. The court dismissed the tenant’s claims for violation of a state and local law regulating smoking because the state law does not allow for a private cause of action and the local law allows smoking in a private office if no more than three people are present, as was the case here.