The resident of a condominium complex shared a porch with a neighbor. The neighbor smoked cigarettes on the porch, which the resident claimed entered his unit through a nearby window. After complaining unsuccessfully to his neighbor, to the condominium board, and to the local government, the resident filed a lawsuit against his neighbor. Following a six-day trial, the jury ruled against the resident on all of his claims including nuisance, breach of the condominium rules, and assault and battery. Additionally, the court found that the resident’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress failed due to insufficient evidence. The court of appeals agreed with the lower court and affirmed the decision against the resident.
Zangrando v. Kuder, 2006 Ohio 1549 (2006).
United States
Mar 31, 2006
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit County
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.
An infringement of a protection contained within a statutory environmental law, including public or private nuisance.
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.
"The trial court went on to instruct the jury on ordinary intentional nuisance, or what has been labeled absolute nuisance, stating: "Now, before you find for the plaintiff, you must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant intentionally and unreasonably caused tobacco smoke to enter [plaintiff Zangrando's residence], which created annoyance and to endanger the comfort and health of the plaintiff." Mr. Zangrando protested this instruction at trial, alleging that he had pled and proven a qualified nuisance cause of action. The trial court overruled this protest, explaining that qualified nuisance was not pled in the complaint. Mr. Zangrando's attorney insisted emphatically to the trial court, and has repeatedly insisted in post-trial motions and on appeal, that qualified nuisance was pled in the complaint. In fact, Mr. Zangrando's complaint states: "Plaintiff further states that the actions of the Defendant is a private nuisance." [sic] (Emphasis added.) It appears that Mr. Zangrando has simply failed to appreciate the difference between private and qualified nuisance. See Black's Law Dictionary, supra. In any event, it is evident that Mr. Zangrando did not plead qualified nuisance in his complaint. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in so finding."
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.
The resident of a condominium complex shared a porch with a neighbor. The neighbor smoked cigarettes on the porch, which the resident claimed entered his unit through a nearby window. After complaining unsuccessfully to his neighbor, to the condominium board, and to the local government, the resident filed a lawsuit against his neighbor. Following a six-day trial, the jury ruled against the resident on all of his claims including nuisance, breach of the condominium rules, and assault and battery. Additionally, the court found that the resident’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress failed due to insufficient evidence. The court of appeals agreed with the lower court and affirmed the decision against the resident.