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.
Three New York State prison inmates sued prison officials for violating their Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment by exposing them to unreasonably dangerous levels of secondhand smoke. The court ruled that the prisoners’ lawsuit could continue because a fact-finder could conclude that the inmates were exposed to unreasonably high levels of secondhand smoke. Additionally, the court said that a rational fact-finder could conclude that prison officials were on notice as to the dangers of secondhand smoke based on information such as the U.S. Surgeon General’s 1986 report. The court also found that the prison officials were not eligible for qualified immunity because their conduct could be seen to have violated clearly established rights.