A tenant sued his neighbor and landlord for secondhand cigarette smoke drifting into his apartment. On appeal, the court rejected all of the tenant’s claims, ruling that (1) the landlord did not breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment because there was no evidence that the landlord substantially disturbed the tenant’s use of his land; (2) there was no battery because the smoke did not intentionally contact the tenant; (3) the trespass claims failed because the tenant did not prove that the landlord should be liable for tenant conduct it could not control; and (4) the nuisance claim failed because the tenant did not demonstrate that a tenant’s cigar smoking was an ultrahazardous activity. Finally, the court rejected the tenant’s claim for retaliatory eviction (i.e., that he was evicted because he filed a lawsuit) because the tenant was behind on his rent and could not prove that his failure to pay rent was excused.
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.
A tenant sued his neighbor and landlord for secondhand cigarette smoke drifting into his apartment. On appeal, the court rejected all of the tenant’s claims, ruling that (1) the landlord did not breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment because there was no evidence that the landlord substantially disturbed the tenant’s use of his land; (2) there was no battery because the smoke did not intentionally contact the tenant; (3) the trespass claims failed because the tenant did not prove that the landlord should be liable for tenant conduct it could not control; and (4) the nuisance claim failed because the tenant did not demonstrate that a tenant’s cigar smoking was an ultrahazardous activity. Finally, the court rejected the tenant’s claim for retaliatory eviction (i.e., that he was evicted because he filed a lawsuit) because the tenant was behind on his rent and could not prove that his failure to pay rent was excused.