And, lest we all forget, the smoker had been there ten years before the whiners moved in. Thank goodness the filtration system was donated (I read about it on msn.com).
If they are so worried about their childs health then why are they living in NYC, or are they waiting for something else to bring a suit against? Anyway, although I do not agree with smoking, I agree with an earlier comment and what one person does in their own home is their business.
I agree that what one does in the privacy of their home is no one’s business, and I am certainly not a fan of busy-bodies. That said, if the smoke invades another’s premises, they are no longer acting solely within the confines of their own home–it is more an issue of trespass. It is not unreasonable for someone to object to noxious odors, noise, bright lights, and other invasions.
On another note, I sure hope that the smokers have their own health insurance. It would be very troubling to think that the adverse health effects of their own [dumb] choices become the financial obligations of others, such as by Medicaid or other public financing of health care. Yes, insurance involves risk sharing, but by and large, participants in private insurance pay proportionately to the risk they bring to the group.
First – if anyone woudl care to know. The Surgeon Generals tests on second hand smoke are inaccurate and under suit. 2nd hand smoke is 98% water vaopr. Nothing there to kill their kid (who no doubt consumes pounds of chemcials in his daily food). Live and let live. Educate yourself – only the smoker wlll die – not you.
Let’s look at this dispassionately; forget about the smoking vs. non-smoking debate, the second hand smoke debate, or even if these folks are whinners. None of that matters.
I’m assuming that most intelligent people would agree that both parties have the right and should expect to be able to occupy their respoective apartments. I don’t think anyone would agree with either party being “kicked out” or forced to move. They paid to be there and as long as they are breaking no laws, they should be allowed to stay.
Well if you agree that they have the “right” to be there, then they also have the right to “enjoy” their apartment.
This means that the smoker can enjoy their apartment any way they want and the non-smoker can enjoy thier apartment any way they want.
If the fumes and smell from the smoke make it difficult to impossible for the non-smoker to enjoy their quiet living, then there is a legal theory called “Nuisance” that applies.
“Nuisance” is substantial interference with the right to use and enjoy land, apartments, or any other such places a person can live.
They may both have the right to be there; but they also have the responsibility not to create a continued nuisance for the others that live there (note the use of “continued,” buring meals from time to time and other such does not constitute nuisance).
It doesn’t matter who lived there first, they both live there now and each party does have certain rights to expect quiet enjoyment.
Just for the sake of curiosity, exactly how much smoking does the party of the smoking part do that it can put that much smoke into another apartment? I don’t like the smell of smoke either, but how much can there really be? My dad smoked 5 packs a day and you couldn’t smell it past the front door.
The walls would have to be pretty thin or the HVAC system (if any) would have to be a part of it; or any number of things if it truly was a nuisance to their daily lives.
Huff smoked about a pack, pack & 1/2, a day in her apartment. She was gone most of the day at the restaurant she owned, so she was only home & smoking after 5pm or 6pm in the eventing. All of her cigarrets were smoked in the evening. The Needlemans lived about 5 or 6 doors away. The issue was that Huff’s smoke wafted into the hallway which made it impossible to walk by her apartment without smelling the smoke and it also would end up down the hall in the Needleman’s apartment.
Yes the Needlemans were both attorny’s so it didn’t cost them must to file the lawsuit.
Huff installed about 4 airfilters, rearranged her home so her smoke would go out the window and had her front door sealed better to reduce smoke getting out in the hall. This was all before they settled.
I think suing the woman was a bit much. I’ll bet if the Needleman’s asked her to take steps to reduce the smoke in the hall she would have done it. That didn’t happen though. The first time Huff found out her smoke was a problem for the Needleman’s was the day she was served by their lawsuit.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
And, lest we all forget, the smoker had been there ten years before the whiners moved in. Thank goodness the filtration system was donated (I read about it on msn.com).
If they are so worried about their childs health then why are they living in NYC, or are they waiting for something else to bring a suit against? Anyway, although I do not agree with smoking, I agree with an earlier comment and what one person does in their own home is their business.
I agree that what one does in the privacy of their home is no one’s business, and I am certainly not a fan of busy-bodies. That said, if the smoke invades another’s premises, they are no longer acting solely within the confines of their own home–it is more an issue of trespass. It is not unreasonable for someone to object to noxious odors, noise, bright lights, and other invasions.
On another note, I sure hope that the smokers have their own health insurance. It would be very troubling to think that the adverse health effects of their own [dumb] choices become the financial obligations of others, such as by Medicaid or other public financing of health care. Yes, insurance involves risk sharing, but by and large, participants in private insurance pay proportionately to the risk they bring to the group.
But waht the artricle didn’t say was that the Plaintiffs were both attornies, so waht did it really cost them
First – if anyone woudl care to know. The Surgeon Generals tests on second hand smoke are inaccurate and under suit. 2nd hand smoke is 98% water vaopr. Nothing there to kill their kid (who no doubt consumes pounds of chemcials in his daily food). Live and let live. Educate yourself – only the smoker wlll die – not you.
Let’s look at this dispassionately; forget about the smoking vs. non-smoking debate, the second hand smoke debate, or even if these folks are whinners. None of that matters.
I’m assuming that most intelligent people would agree that both parties have the right and should expect to be able to occupy their respoective apartments. I don’t think anyone would agree with either party being “kicked out” or forced to move. They paid to be there and as long as they are breaking no laws, they should be allowed to stay.
Well if you agree that they have the “right” to be there, then they also have the right to “enjoy” their apartment.
This means that the smoker can enjoy their apartment any way they want and the non-smoker can enjoy thier apartment any way they want.
If the fumes and smell from the smoke make it difficult to impossible for the non-smoker to enjoy their quiet living, then there is a legal theory called “Nuisance” that applies.
“Nuisance” is substantial interference with the right to use and enjoy land, apartments, or any other such places a person can live.
They may both have the right to be there; but they also have the responsibility not to create a continued nuisance for the others that live there (note the use of “continued,” buring meals from time to time and other such does not constitute nuisance).
It doesn’t matter who lived there first, they both live there now and each party does have certain rights to expect quiet enjoyment.
Just for the sake of curiosity, exactly how much smoking does the party of the smoking part do that it can put that much smoke into another apartment? I don’t like the smell of smoke either, but how much can there really be? My dad smoked 5 packs a day and you couldn’t smell it past the front door.
Nobody,
Heck of a good question and I have no idea.
The walls would have to be pretty thin or the HVAC system (if any) would have to be a part of it; or any number of things if it truly was a nuisance to their daily lives.
I saw an interview that MSN did with Huff.
Huff smoked about a pack, pack & 1/2, a day in her apartment. She was gone most of the day at the restaurant she owned, so she was only home & smoking after 5pm or 6pm in the eventing. All of her cigarrets were smoked in the evening. The Needlemans lived about 5 or 6 doors away. The issue was that Huff’s smoke wafted into the hallway which made it impossible to walk by her apartment without smelling the smoke and it also would end up down the hall in the Needleman’s apartment.
Yes the Needlemans were both attorny’s so it didn’t cost them must to file the lawsuit.
Huff installed about 4 airfilters, rearranged her home so her smoke would go out the window and had her front door sealed better to reduce smoke getting out in the hall. This was all before they settled.
I think suing the woman was a bit much. I’ll bet if the Needleman’s asked her to take steps to reduce the smoke in the hall she would have done it. That didn’t happen though. The first time Huff found out her smoke was a problem for the Needleman’s was the day she was served by their lawsuit.
I would move directly across from the plaintiff couple and leave doors/windows/blinds open and have porn playing 24-7. Wonder what they would do then?