Couple sues: Neighbors smoke outdoors

[The Straight Story]

Couple sues: Neighbors smoke outdoors


EL DORADO HILLS, Calif., Nov. 1 (UPI) -- A California couple has filed a lawsuit seeking relief from their next-door neighbor's second-hand cigarette smoke, their attorney said.

Donna and Richard Ganguet of El Dorado Hills, Calif., who live in gated community for people age 55 and older, said cigar and cigarette smoke wafts into their yard from the property of neighbor Florence Solone, The Sacramento Bee reported Saturday.

David Trapani, a lawyer for the couple, said they wanted to resolve the issue without confrontation but they were unable to contact the neighbor by telephone and letter.

"They have a right to smoke, but that right ends when it impacts someone else's property, Trapani said.

....

The Ganguets said they considered selling their house and moving rather than filing a lawsuit, but they believe the neighbor's smoke, which they said settles like a fog in their yard, would make a sale difficult.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/11/01/Couple-sues-Neighbors-smoke-outdoors/UPI-15301257122542/

[ShortnFiery]

1. The ultimate "Get off my lawn" bullshit by people who need more of a life.

:thumbsdown:

[zonkers]

132. Ironic that you bash complainers, saying they need more of a life when that is literally what they

are hoping to achieve -- a longer life. 2nd hand smoke kills. I don't know the exact layout of the units but f this is a senior complex and not the Ponderosa Ranch -- I would think a smoke free environment is not an unreasonable thing to expect.


on edit...

And don't even get me started on leaf blowers and the havoc they cause.

[imdjh]

183. There is a difference between second hand smoke and cigarette odor.

[MajorChode]

262. Sweet Jebus, leaf blowers will surely spell the end of civilization as we know it

2nd story smoke will only hasten the calamity!

Finally someone else gets it!

















:sarcasm:

[Joe Fields]

292. There are a great many things in the public domain that kill.

Let's ban them all, because, well gosh, we sure wouldn't want to offend anybody.

Also, you need to prove to me thast second hand smoke kills. I do not buy your premise. Irritate lungs, yes, sometimes. Enhance breathing difficulties, such as emphysema, yes, but kill? Nope. Prove it.

[zonkers]

298. Offending people? Is that what we are calling subjecting others to 2nd hand smoke these days?

[pipoman]

309. This isn't about a health concern

it is about a smell. If "2nd hand smoke" is of any health concern what so ever outside, presumably 50 or 100 feet away, then imagine the health risk of my neighbor's furnace exhaust, lawn mower exhaust, or car exhaust. I will challenge any person who wants to bitch about outdoor smoking to a test. I will sit in a car with 4 chain smokers, they can sit in a car with the car's exhaust piped in the cabin..first one to leave the car or die looses. Outdoor smoking bans are simply and strictly about smells and nothing else. There are many smells I dislike..farts, sewer treatment plants, animal farms, perfume, body sprays, bad breath, fresh paint, bbq grills...if this is successful just you wait until your emissions are stepped on. And again, if this was in fact about health concerns, why wouldn't the concern also be on the really deadly emissions like fuel exhaust?

[WriteDown]

2. Keep a very close eye on this..

This is going to be MJ next when it becomes legal.

[krabigirl]

121. Well, the good news is that MJ can be eaten, taken in a concentrate, vaporized.

I don't see how the neighbors can complain about someone eating a brownie.

[WriteDown]

200. True, but some will still prefer to smoke it. nt

[noamnety]

267. I have nothing of merit to add to this

but holy cow: "MJ can be eaten, taken in a concentrate, vaporized." is a very confusing statement if you read MJ as Michael Jackson.

[tmyers09]

3. The smoking Nazis strike again.

First it's restaurants and bars, now it's you own fucking yard.

[Zoeisright]

6. Keep it in your own damn lungs, and I don't care if you burst into flame.

Your right to smoke ends at my nose.

[DesertFlower]

12. i agree. nt

[ohheckyeah]

13. and I bet you have a long one. n/t

[Doremus]

14. hehe

[sabrina 1]

31. No it doesn't, actually. And I think these two will lose.

There is no law that says you cannot smoke on your own property. Case closed.


Btw, I hope you don't drive a car because your right to spew your nasty fumes into the air we all breathe ends at my lungs. That is if I were to use your faulty logic.

[Hannah Bell]

35. i think so too. if they won it would open the door to lots of anti-corporate suits.

people have lost suing over worse shit. like nauseating hog shit & factory gas.

oh, what am i saying? second-hand tobacco smoke is instant death, how could i have forgotten?

[SoCalDem]

41. Selfish logic has brought us to where we are

There is no "accommodation" for anyone anymore. Everything is now defined as "how it affects me, me me me , and then how it affects me.

It's very odd too, because our whole society was based on laissez-faire, and came to be as we rebelled against "control".

We seem to have opted-in to a wild & crazy kind of thinking, where the individual (me v you) has slopped over into every phase of life.

MY kid is allergic to "x", so NO ONE at their school is allowed to bring, consume, wear, etc "x"...and there better damned well be a RULE that every other parent has to follow so MY kid can be "x-free".

I "don't like-can't tolerate-am allergic to".."X", so no one in my vicinity is allowed to use-consume-wear-etc anywhere near me.

The "public" used to be viewed in a broad way, and now is interpreted and litigated based on a very narrow (and getting narrower) basis.

[Toots]

67. Your me me me mentality seems to leave out the smoker

The smoker that thinks it is just fine to pollute anywhere they please just so they can have their fix..IMO smoking is the ultimate me me me syndrome

[Toasterlad]

124. Yeah, Those Selfish Fucks...Smoking In Their Own Backyard.

What kind of selfish asshole would do something so completely legal as to smoke on their own property?

[hughee99]

145. When did "anywhere they please" become one's own back yard? n/t

[raw oysters]

223. You have a point. Next person who drives a car near me better watch out for my .357

:grr:

[Vinnie From Indy]

238. What about folks that don't drive automobiles?

Why should they be subjected to the fumes from traffic on their street? Why should they have to breathe the asbestos fibers in the air from people's brakes engaging?

What about cell phone users? Why should I be subjected to possible brain cancer because someone wants to use their cell phone in my proximity?

What about coal fueled power plants? What if I get all my power from solar and wind and I don't want a few years shaved off my life breathing the pollution from coal plants?

The list goes on and on:
Weed whackers
lawn mowers
campfires
burning leaves
BBQ grills
fireworks

While I agree about smoke free workplaces, I have NEVER found the air so still for extended periods of time that cigarette and cigar smoke would linger for hours on end, day after day in a residential setting. I think the neighbors are being assholes, but I would certainly take time to go discuss the matter with them and try to find an accommodating solution if I smoked.

[Hannah Bell]

300. it's their property, not "anywhere they please". smoking is *legal*.

get a life.

[underseasurveyor]

306. Oh well then please forgive us... we weren't informed

that it's all about you and what you deem appropriate for others to do on their own land. Oh how selfish of us your highness.

Sorry to break it to ya Toots but smoking is legal and we're talking about the owners private property in their own backyard. So reel your nose back in and Deal!

[Toots]

310. You are the perfect example

You could care less if anyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get your satisfaction. Yes this case is about someone in their own yard. I could give a shit what people do in the privacy of their own home (or yard) but most smokers want more. They want to force their smoke on people anywhere in public. They complain they aren't allowed to smoke in restaurants any longer. If they had their way they would want to be able to smoke any damn place they want. they feel somehow it is their RIGHT..Not a single thought to how others feel about it..Sorry people IMO. do you fit that bill as well?

[underseasurveyor]

311. Why thank you for proving once again

that's it people like you that take any situation and take it to the extreme. The only one whining and complaining about public places is you. We aren't talking about 'most smokers' and we're not talking about "public places" either. We're talking about a persons own home and property and it the incessant whining of nannys like you that apparently have no clue as to where your own business ends. And excuse me apparently you do care what people do in the privacy of their own homes because I submit you being here whining and complaining about all smokers in all places is proof enough of that and if you had your way there'd be no smoking anywhere INCLUDING a persons private home and property.

You, like the fundie freaks, won't be happy until everyone is assimilated into thinking and behaving like you and tolerance and choice be damned. And it is a persons right to smoke... IT'S LEGAL.

Your side has already gained much ground and you are winning the battle of no smoking in public places. There are more public places in Southern California in which a person can not smoke compared to where a person can smoke. So what more do you fucking people want?

Oh and BTW.... You foolishly ASSUmed I smoke... I don't.

[underseasurveyor]

115. I think calling it Spoiled Brat Logic fits better

Just as children naturally defy their parents control when and if that parent finally gives in a little bit and the 'Spoiled Brat' then perceives that the control has shifted in their favor they begin screaming and demanding more often and increasingly louder, they hate this and they want that. Me me me. And slowly but surely that Spoiled Brat begins getting their way more and more and it gets to a point that it becomes unbearable for not only the parents but eventually spreads out to the whole neighborhood.


I'm sure I'm guilty of it too at times, I think we all are, but it's important to be conscience of to what degree do we take it.

Cheers SoCal:toast:

[snagglepuss]

226. Riiiggghhhhhttttt.... non-smokers are brats but not smokers.

The crux is that the smokers are creating a toxic environment which non-smokers aren't. No different than people who blare music all day not satisfied to tone it down, completely ignorant of what consideration means.

[sabrina 1]

258. You must not drive a car, or light a fire in a fireplace, or

ever have a barbecue or use central heating or air-conditioning or wear perfume. Or use a cell phone, I'm sure you know that in order for us to have the convenience of cell phones, people in other countries are dying. Now that would be a lawsuit I could support.

Smokers are not complaining about your contributions to the toxic atmosphere you are helping to create. But you know what, maybe it's time for them to do so. If you were as considerate as you want everyone else to be, you would give up some of your bad habits that contribute far more to our toxic environment than smokers could dream of.

You need to be very pure in your own behavior, before you start pointing fingers at others. That is what people object to. The whining of the anti-smokers who are not so pure themselves when it comes to polluting the atmosphere.

[underseasurveyor]

304. Crap I responded to the wrong post

Sorry :spank: My bad

[underseasurveyor]

303. No I think that's probably a split decision. No TKO's here

Even though this thread is about smokers and smoking. Unfortunately that bratty me me me attitude extends far out beyond the boundaries of ones own backyard into many different areas of other peoples life and living as a whole as you so graciously and thoughtfully keep proving.

Just because you somehow perceive that you are and have consideration for others doesn't mean you actually do. Makes me wonder what you do that perhaps your neighbours find distasteful? I'm sure there's something. I have many neighbours and most of them have or do something that is slightly irritating but rather than sue them for a bullshit reason I let them be and live their OWN lives. See how easy that is?! You're all tense and worked up.. maybe you should take up smoking. It'll calm your nerves.

Got a car?

[sabrina 1]

173. Exactly ~ it's a cultrue of 'me'

The problem with that is, everyone has something that bothers them. Some people are allergic to perfume, eg. If we all went around suing people for bothering us, the courts would have no time to deal with real crime.

I think what probably happened in this case is that the smokers probably took the threatening letters to a lawyer and were advised not to respond. Let them sue, there is no law to back up their claims so they will most likely lose.

[Horse with no Name]

274. I don't smoke and I have severe asthma

With that being said--on the days my neighbors burn their leaves, I stay inside.
I wouldn't object if they smoked outside--the sheer expansiveness of the air should dilute any minute particles that MIGHT drift your way so that it wouldn't be a major health concern to anyone.
It MIGHT stink--and that is a drag, but I don't think that suing your neighbor because he smokes on his porch qualifies as a legit complaint.:shrug:

[SoCalDem]

276. We used to have barbequers next door, and those people BURNED everything they cooked

It used to really annoy me, on nice days, when i would have to close the house and use the A/C, but it never occurred to me to sue them.. even though it did cost ME money when I had to use the AC instead of the free cool breeze outside.

One time, someone called the fire department on them,since the smoke was really billowing up from the back of their house :rofl:

[Horse with no Name]

278. I live in a rural area and we have burn bans

These fools FRET when there is a burn ban because they can't burn shit all day. That's all they talk about at the grocery store--"Burn Ban still on?" "Yeah". "Well shit, I gots stuff to BURN!"
I have no idea what they find to burn, but on the days the ban is lifted, the entire town looks like a Kiwanis BBQ pit!

[underseasurveyor]

305. See if I had a sweet rational reasonable neighbour like you

I wouldn't dream of smoking outside if you were outside. And I'd wait until you went somewhere before I burned my leaves.

:hug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

150. How Could You Possibly Inhale Smoke With Your Nose Stuck Up So High In The Air?

What I wouldn't give for the chance to blow smoke in your face.

[underseasurveyor]

168. But if I burst into flames, you'd whine about that smoke too

:eyes:

[cark]

221. Perfume? Some lady had stinky perfume on today -

Can I sue her?

[Joe Fields]

293. Stay out of public, then.

I suggest you stay in your house and do not leave, as there are many offensive and potentially harmful smells out there.

[rd_kent]

85. No, its not in YOUR yard, its in MY yard.

If you can keep your smoke in YOUR yard, then by all means, smoke away........

[baldguy]

91. Do you feed the same way about a barbeque pit or grill in your neighbors' back yard?

[rd_kent]

100. Depends......

Using a BBQ is COOKING.....something we all must do.....and its temporary...usually does not last all day and all night......


Smoking on the other hand..........



Apples and oranges, friend, apples and oranges.....

[ScreamingWhisper]

118. No...it's Apples to Apples

YOU can cook indoors to keep the smelly scent of your grill and food smoke from bothering me. No where does it say you HAVE to cook outdoors in this modern age. If it's okay to grill out, it's okay to smoke outdoors. The smoke exhaled from the lungs disappated just as quickly as the smoke from a BBQ, perhaps even faster.

[rd_kent]

176. You may be right....

It is a matter of opinion and how the neighbor deal with the smoke I guess.....

[baldguy]

128. They both involve burning organic material

Which may create carcinogens & unpleasant odors.

No difference.

[imdjh]

106. My mom can't sit on her patio some nights because the neighbors' fireplaces.

I know you don't normally think about Floridians having fireplaces, but it became a fad in the renovation craze. Now, young Floridians wait impatiently for the first 70ºF day so they can wear northern hip hop club clothes, and their parents drool at the prospect of having a fire. When they all light up, my mom's patio smells like the inside of a bishop's casket.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

196. Inside of a bishop's casket.....

Never heard that one.....ROFL!!!

:rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

155. What About Your Car Exhaust? Barbecue? Fireplace? Perfume? Where Does It End?

Yes, let's all have lawsuits based on our noses now. Yeah... That'll go well.

[rd_kent]

177. I guess it ends when your neighbors complain.....

We all have the right to enjoy our property, don't you agree? You have as much right to smoke on your property as I have to not breathe smoke on my property. If you and I were neighbors, I would hope that we could reach an agreement that we both could live with.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

208. Yes, Let's Talk In Circles. What About Barbecues? Fireplaces? Perfume? Car Exhaust? Dryer Vent.

Where does it...

Wait... Didn't I do this already?

Geez... Guess all that must've totally went over your head or something...

[rd_kent]

210. No one is going in circle but you.....

As I said, I think the line is drawn where the neighbors decide to draw it. What is a good compromise for you and I may not be for someone else. Do you not agree that neighbors should work together to decide where it ends????

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

216. Nope.

I smoke on my property, tough shit if you smell it. I have to bend over backwards enough in society already because of over dramatic non smokers. At home? Fuck that.

And not for a second am I gonna condone a mass uprising in neighbor concessional talks by setting such a precedent. All of a sudden every neighbor complaining about everything. "Can you not barbecue anymore? The smell makes me nauseous". "Is it possible for you to use different fabric softener sheets? The fragrance from the one you're using bothers me when I walk by". "Can you not light fires in your fireplace anymore? I don't like the smell too much". Fuck that.

Life and perfect. Dealt with it. Your neighbor smokes and you don't like it? Boo hoo for you. Life gets worse.

[Name removed]

218. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

220. You Got Nuttin.

Noselifter.

[rd_kent]

225. No, nosepincher....

Since as you have demonstrated that you will do whatever you want, fuck everyone else.........Wait, isnt that the Rightwing motto?

[waiting for hope]

294. My husband and I smoke outside -

because we have children in the house. Now, I know one next door neighbor smokes pot in their garage .. :smoke: I think I'd have a pretty good argument there.

[dionysus]

237. ridiculous. two people smoking in the open air that far away shouldn't even be smellable.

[rd_kent]

281. "Shouldn't" is the key word. But maybe it does....

And what is "that far away"?

[joeybee12]

116. Nope, it's the inconsiderate bastards striking again...the smokers obviously

don't like the smoke themselves, or they'd smoke indoors.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

129. Exactly.

My downstairs neighbor smokes on her back deck to avoid stinking up her house. So she stinks up the back porch for everyone. Although, I AM thankful she DOESN'T smoke inside because we live in a 100 year old building with zero insulation between floors. If she ever switches to chain-smoking inside we will have a problem.

If I can only get her to empty her butt buckets before they fill up with water and create the most disgusting toxic substance on this earth. That stuff could gag a maggot.

[Occulus]

307. You can use nicotine tea to kill bad bugs in the garden

Obviously not from a butt bucket, but it actually does have a use.

[NYC_SKP]

4. I'm a smoker, but I would be upset by neighbors smoke, especially cigar smoke...

...if it was strong and frequent.

Yet, I know El Dorado Hills communities and these are usually big yards.

I can't imagine there NOT being a solution outside the courtroom.

I suspect other tensions between these two households or they would be able to work it out.

:shrug:

[WriteDown]

11. Nothing better than a good cigar...

But the cheap stuff can be harsh if up close.

[Psephos]

312. Actually, there is something better...

A good cigar AND a bit of righteous scotch in a crystal snifter. ;)

Hard to beat a Dunhill Lonsdale with Connecticut shade wrapper, and an inch or two of 15 year Macallan.

[Soylent Brice]

113. best common sense response:

"I suspect other tensions between these two households or they would be able to work it out."

i have nothing to add to that.

[DJ13]

5. sigh

[smalll]

7. "the neighbor's smoke, which ... settles like a fog in their yard..."

[depakid]

8. "they were unable to contact the neighbor by telephone and letter."

Sounds like a couple of passive aggressives to me.

Take it to mediation you cowards.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. I take it knocking on her door was out of the question?

[BlueMTexpat]

46. That was my first thought too.

It doesn't sound like those who are suing are good neighbors themselves.
********
I can't be/stay indoors when people are smoking or where there has been heavy smoking without having my sinuses swell, my eyes get red and start to run, and beginning to sneeze. If I stay (and sometimes I have little to no choice), it leads to a severe headache and ultimately I become violently ill, with nausea and vomiting. It can take a couple days to get my system back to an equilibrium. If some want to call me a "Smoking Nazi" because I prefer not to suffer like that, then so be it. I also prefer not to get lung cancer in the longer term, but these short term effects are immediate.
I do not have such symptoms when I am with those who smoke outdoors unless there are several who deliberately blow smoke into my face nonstop. Fortunately, those smokers I know are courteous enough not to do that.
I have extreme sensitivity to secondhand smoke and can certainly coexist with people who smoke outdoors. I do not understand the suing couple at all. They are, IMO, wacko.

[Hannah Bell]

36. the neighbors are out in their yard smoking so much that it settles like a fog

in the neighborhood - but the neighbors can't "contact" them?

hello? they're in the yard!!!

[imdjh]

107. LOL +1

[sabrina 1]

141. Maybe they should have tried smoke signals?

Lol, I hope they are laughed out of court. If this is all they have to worry about in their pristine, almost perfect existences, I think they need to find something worthwhile to do with their time.

[TK421]

279. It takes some time to break out the walkers....

[Ikonoklast]

9. Good luck getting a judge to hear that one.

Not gonna happen.

[TexasObserver]

23. You're absolutely wrong about that. It's a good cause of action.

Private Nuisance

A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation.

Examples of private nuisances abound. Nuisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house; destruction of crops; raising of a water table; or the pollution of soil, a stream, or an underground water supply. Examples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light, or high temperatures. Moreover, a nuisance may also disturb an occupant's mental tranquility, such as a neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened and has not actually occurred.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/nuisance

[Ikonoklast]

24. Cigarette smoke? Or smoke from a fire, or other open combustion?

One is not exactly like the other. I don't think this comes even close to qualifying for a 'nuisance'.

What about a pedestrian walking past their yard? Could he be enjoined from smoking as he walked past their residence?

Or internal combustion engines.

Could they then make a case that noxious fumes from automobiles or lawnmowers keep them from enjoying their property? Bet they wouldn't, as they most likely own one.

This case would set a precedent that would be so far-reaching as to be ridiculous in its' potential scope.

Seems more like a nuisance suit against neighbors they don't care for.

If it's a good course of action, I wonder how many people have been legally constrained from smoking in their own back yard, by a neighbor, or anyone, for that matter.

[TexasObserver]

45. What you really mean is you WISH it wasn't a nuisance because you don't want it to be.

The plaintiffs may or may not prevail. They may be able to get an injunction against their neighbors which would require those neighbors to either stop smoking outside adjacent to the plaintiffs or take measures to keep their smoke on their side of the fence.

I suggest that instead of trying to argue the point with me, you go educate yourself about the cause of action of nuisance, and the various public laws that deal with it and take actions to enforce city or county ordinances that might deal with it.

It's just a case, like so many others about too much smoke, too much noise, too many beat up cars, too many dogs, too many cackling chickens, too many rodents, too many snakes, etc. Cigar smoke is foul and noxious. It's sickening, even to many cigarette smokers. A jury will decide if it is a nuisance, and they'll do so after the judge explains the law in their jurisdiction and gives them instructions for carrying out their duty.

[Kalyke]

70. Can the smokers sue the neighbors for being busybody nuisances, then?

Seems the anti-smoking couple are just a foul in their nosiness than the smoking couple are in their smoke.

BTW, if someone is smoking enough to create "fog" in the neighbor's yard, then they may be dead in six months, so why worry?

[TexasObserver]

73. No.

And they aren't being nosy. They can't avoid the problem because their obnoxious, inconsiderate neighbors are fouling the air nonstop. They're asserting their rights to enjoy their backyard without having it fouled by their irresponsible neighbor.

[DaveinJapan]

261. Obnoxious, inconsiderate, irresponsible. Wow.

Even though they haven't even been contacted, you consider them all those things?

You must really, really hate smokers.

[rd_kent]

88. How is sitting in one's own yard being a "busybody"?

If the neighbors were worried about some other activity going on next door, then you may be right, but this seems like the activity of the neighbors is going beyond the boundaries of the property and interfering with the right of the people next door to enjoy their property. How is that being a busybody?

[depakid]

25. The judge is still unlikely to be pleased about this- especially under the current circumstances

Wasting the court's time and resources with a matter that can (and ought to be) settled elsewhere.

[TexasObserver]

50. That is NOT how a judge considers such a case.

It's a nuisance case, and someone is complaining about noxious fumes from a neighbor's house. It could be another perfectly "legal" use of the property which brings a plaintiff to complain, a use other than cigarette and cigar smoking. For example, if the next door neighbor likes to work on cars, he may generate a lot of tailpipe smoke, and that would be just as objectionable and just as subject to an action to stop that neighbor from doing what he has been doing - working on his car with no provision for his fumes.

The judge will send the matter to mediation to try to get it resolved, but if there is a nuisance statute or ordinance with language which supports such cases for smoke or noxious fumes, the case will not be dismissed by the judge because it is a validly pleaded and filed case.

Cases get dismissed for failure to state a valid cause of action or failure to state sufficient facts to make a prima facie case, or for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or the parties. This matter clearly meets the criteria for a nuisance case. It is a FACT issue whether the smoke from the neighbor's is violative of the statute or ordinance, one that a jury, not a judge, typically decides.

If the parties agree to appear before only the judge as trier of fact, then the judge will decide the facts, but only if neither side properly invokes their right to a jury trial.

[depakid]

230. As I said- the judge will be pissed.

He'll put pressure on the attorney's to get this off the docket- and will be cranky during status conferences and law & motion.

Moreover, unless the case is looking only for some sort of monetary damages- it's exempt from mandatory judicial arbitration (as these bodies have no power to injunctions or order abatement). Of course, there's a fair argument that the matters alleged are too frivolous or insubstantial for such remedies- and it would simply track to arbitration. In a case like this- that would probably be a waste of time, as the parties would just de novo out of spite- not worrying about whatever additional moneys might they might have to pay by rejecting the award.

This is EXACTLY why many communities have neighborhood mediation services- not only are they less expensive to the individuals and the state (California can ill afford this right now) but since the individuals face each other- vent- and craft their own agreements, it's much more likely to prevent further problems down the line.

[TexasObserver]

242. We don't know what the judge will do.

He or she will likely send them to mediation quickly and tell the lawyers to try to get it settled. He or she will likely try to get them to settle it on hearing day, if it comes to an injunction hearing. And the judge will likely try to get them to settle it before he or she renders a ruling.

Or, the judge might welcome a chance to hear this. Maybe the judge hates smoking. Maybe the judge can't stand having smokers standing outside the courthouse puffing away, and running that gauntlet daily.

Judges almost always try to get cases settle, so it is likely any judge of this case would do likewise.

This judge will hear an injunction if the case doesn't settle however, and after that, the court will hear a trial at a future date on the issue of damages, and perhaps on the issue of a permanent injunction.

[depakid]

243. Odds are he'll "strongly suggest" settling- but has no power to order it

These sorts of cases are a nuisance- no pun intended. And he isn't likely to be blaming the defendants for this one.

I wouldn't want to be plaintiff's counsel, that's for sure.

[TexasObserver]

244. I like the plaintiffs' case.

They have injury to real estate value and usage. They have fouled air that even the defendant doesn't want to be around. She makes her brats go outside to smoke.

[depakid]

247. I'm sure they'll make that argument- along with others- and eyes will roll

This case would be easy to resolve elsewhere and I'd bet water to wine that this is about more than just smoking.

[TorchTheWitch]

272. actually, the judge can sort of order it

The judge can give them the choice of either settling between themselves or he/she will throw the case out. Judges use this threat all the time when they don't want frivolous cases wasting court time. The judge is not going to be pleased that plaintiffs have made no attempt whatsoever to resolve the situation with the neighbors before bringing the suit.

A lawsuit like this should only be a LAST resort. The fact that plaintiffs did not even bother to so much as inform the neighbors that they took issue with the smoking before suing shows they are not really interested in puting and end to it but more interested in making a point, which shows they are not as bothered by the smoking as they profess to be. When someone is truly bothered with the actions of a neighbor they will want the bothersome activity to stop ASAP, and a lawsuit does not accomplish that.

[TexasObserver]

280. That's not going to happen. I've explained it in my posts, if you want to know why.

A lawsuit is exactly what accomplishes the objectives in this matter. It's a good case. It's clearly a Nuisance case, as well as a case for injunction. The only issue is whether the judge assigned to the case will grant an injunction. There has to be legal basis for a dismissal. It can't just be "someone on a message board thinks it ought to happen."

If you take the time to read the article, you'll know they sent at least two letters to the defendant before acting. The defendant ignored both letters.

[raw oysters]

251. The plaintiffs are related to the woman who called the cops on a 'naked man across the street'

The police arrived and asked the woman "okay where's this naked man"
"Right over there", she answered, pointing...

They squinted and peered for several minutes then said "Madam, we can't see anything"

"Oh," she answered, "you have to stand on this chair and use these binoculars."

[rd_kent]

90. really? Seems like a very reasonable case to me.

Not sure I believe that "they were unable to contact the neighbors by phone or letter", but a nuisance claim is very valid.

[depakid]

232. This doesn't even rise to the level of most barking dog cases

[rd_kent]

283. Well, its one persons opinion.

Constant cig smoke is worse than a barking dog, IMO. I still think this case COULD have been worked out between neighbors, but it seems like they failed to try and reach an agreement.

[sabrina 1]

32. 'Examples of private nuisances abound'

I think you just made a good case for the smoking couple. There is no law against smoking on your own property. This case will probably be thrown out.

However, if I were the other couple, I would sue the two next door for interfering with with my 'right to enjoyment and use of my land'. I think that would be a more successful attempt at a lawsuit. I bet those two who are suing are a nuisance to the entire neighborhood so there are probably plenty of witnesses also.

Yes, it's time to start going after these whiners. And I don't smoke, but those people have every right to be left alone on their own property without being harassed by these two nutcases. They are not even credible. 'Couldn't reach them' ~ riiight! 'Couldn't sell the house' ~ what a joke, I think the judge will laugh this case out of court.

No wonder the world laughs at this country. Immature, demanding babies who are grown up physically, but emotionally are the equivalent of spoiled two-year-olds who think the world revolves around their wants and desires.

[Hannah Bell]

37. "couldn't reach them" - but they're supposedly out in their yard smoking so much

that the fog blankets the neighborhood.

[TexasObserver]

51. A NUISANCE can be an otherwise legal use of property and often is.

You can own a dog. You can own several dogs. You can keep them in your yard all the time, fenced in. But if they bark too much, or too loudly, they are a NUISANCE, and your neighbor can take legal action against you for spoiling the peace of the neighborhood with your yapping ankle biters.

You can work on your car. You can work on several cars. You can keep them on your property. But if the noise or fumes from your cars is a nuisance to your neighbors AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THAT JURISDICTION, you can be subject to a private lawsuit for damages, as well as action by the state, county or municipality against you.

Most nuisances are from people using their land in a way they think is perfectly acceptable, and it would be, if they didn't send their noise or their fumes across their property line to the property of other neighbors.

[Statistical]

61. +1. Makes perfect sense.

Will the case get dismissed who knows however people assumming the couple has no case are naive.

If they can prove that smoke does enter their yard and creates a nusiance I would imagine a judge would at least consider the merits of the case.

[TexasObserver]

63. Yes. It is clear that smoke can be a nuisance, but it is a fact question whether THIS use is.

A jury might easily decide this use is not a nuisance, even though it bothers the next door neighbor.

The story tells us that the lady next door does not allow anyone to smoke in her house, not even family members. It also tells us she has three adult family members living with her, and they must all go outside in the back yard to smoke. That means SHE doesn't have to put up with the smoke her own family is creating, so that tells us that SHE knows the smoke is both harmful and noxious.

So, we have three adults who smoke outside, in the yard adjacent to plaintiffs. We can infer that they are probably out there smoking periodically for most of the evening, and perhaps several times a day. That's a lot of second hand smoke to put up with. The plaintiffs would have to smell that pretty much every time they use their backyard after 5 pm.

[sabrina 1]

131. The only way you would win a case regarding a dog barking

is if there is a noise ordinance that the barking violates. Dogs bark. I hear them every day all the time and no one calls the cops. And people work on their cars all the time without busy body neighbors running to the cops. Again, there would have to be law that the noise violates.


Much as you'd like to see these busy bodies win, they cannot do so without a law being violated.

[TexasObserver]

184. Sorry, but you're badly misinformed.

You don't have the first clue about either the requirements of a civil Nuisance lawsuit or an injunctive proceeding.

There doesn't have to be an ordinance. That gives rise to a government right to act against the violater criminally. This lawsuit is a civil lawsuit.

[sabrina 1]

189. I know it's a civil lawsuit. Civil lawsuits get thrown out of court

every day.


In order to prevail in a civil suit, you have to prove you have been 'harmed'. That doesn't mean 'annoyed'. Exactly how are these two going to show they have been harmed by something someone is doing perfectly legally on their own property?

They can try to use the second-hand smoke claims but there is just as much credible evidence contradicting those claims.

The smokers have been very smart so far, imo. Not responding to threatening letters is exactly the right thing to do. Clearly they have consulted their own attorneys.

Their non-engagement with these two leaves the plaintiffs with only a very weak claim of being 'annoyed'. If they were to win, everyone who claims to be 'harmed' by a neighbor's barbecue would have a case also. There are limits to what you can claim in a civil suit if you expect not to be laughed out of court.

Anyone who is this frightened by something as benign as as a neighbor smoking on their own property that they
can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. as someone famous once said.

They are attempting to throw away all of our rights and as a result, are a far greater threat to the general welfare than the smokers next door. It is shocking to see Democrats so willing to help them to be honest. No wonder we cannot win anything of significance even when we are a majority party. We would still be singing 'God Save the King' if the current Democrats were around before the Revolution.

[TexasObserver]

194. There has to be a legal basis for getting a case dismissed.

None of those elements are present here. This case is well grounded in well settled law. You couldn't be more wrong about your conclusion that there is no case here, or that it is easily dismissible.

In order to prove a NUISANCE case you have to prove the elements, which I set out in another post and am not going to repeat one more time.

The plaintiffs may be able to get an injunction, as well, against the defendants. Certainly, they can get damages. You seem to think the right to smoke on your property is the same as having the right to foul your neighbor's air. It isn't.

Smokers are free to smoke in their homes, but when they walk outside, they're fouling the air, and if they're in close proximity to others they can be held accountable for fouling the air.

I want to know what motion to dismiss you would file. What is its basis? Or do you intend to file your Taintzesque motion based upon your general lack of knowledge in this area?

[sabrina 1]

203. I would not file a motion to dismiss, I would file a counter suit

for harassment and a violation of my 4th Amendment rights. It is up to the court to decide if the case has any merit.

You have no case. If you did, all smoke emanating from anything anywhere, including the exhaust from cars, is actionable. Everyone could claim 'damages'.

You are claiming 'damages' but you have not shown what 'damage' there is other than two very irritable people who are annoyed. We all get annoyed that is not the same thing as being 'harmed'.

They are fouling up the constitutional rights of people to be left alone on their own property. Show me a law that guarantees a pristine environment. There is none. And until smoking, like drugs, becomes illegal, society is not so stupid as to assume there will not be smoke when someone lights a cigarette or cigar or tobacco pipe eg. So, by the very fact that smoking is legal, society has agreed that smoke will be in the air. Where is the law that states otherwise?

And where is the law that says you must smoke INSIDE your house? You are inventing rules to fit your argument. That might be what these two would like, but there is no law to support it. But go ahead, keep trying to step on all of our rights by supporting this ridiculous claim. I consider you and them to be far more of a threat, as I have already said, to our safety and well-being by attempting to dismiss our right to be free of government interference on our own property.

[TexasObserver]

211. We were discussing your Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's case.

Now you're going to file a counter claim? In state court? For violations of your 4th amendment rights?

When it comes to law, you could be the next Orly Taintz.

You don't understand any of this, and I'm not going to explain it to you.

[sabrina 1]

241. As far as a motion to dismiss, they probably should file

one and then a counter-suit should that motion fail.


But you have not shown any basis for their claim that they have been harmed. They are annoyed, but on what basis can they claim they were harmed?

[KurtNYC]

80. Obviously these neighbors have not worked things out

there is a lot that the article does NOT say. For instance, why are the nicotine people smoking in their backyard as opposed to in their house? Maybe this a grudge match on the order of the 2YO mentality you describe --'oh it bugs you when I smoke in my backyard...here is some more for you.'

[rubberducky]

114. What about a crying , colicky baby, or whining kids?

[TexasObserver]

119. You're going to have to go down that rabbit trail by yourself.

I'll stick to these facts.

Gated community. Defendant next door makes her 3 adult kids/spouses, who live with her (all smokers) go outside to smoke. They do, and they generate mass quantities of smoke beside the plaintiffs' home, all hours of the day and night, if they're like most smokers who need a pacifer once every 30 minutes or so. The Defendant, who doesn't want that nasty smoke in her house, ignores at least two letters asking her to do something about the problem. Now she's sued, which is what happens to people who ignore warning letters.

[rubberducky]

130. I was only referring to your post about "Nuisance". I once had a neighbor who had a colicky baby.

Baby cried day and night. But NO ONE in the neighborhood mowed thier yard when the baby was quiet. To my knowledge no one sued her. I used to smoke in my back yard all the time, sometimes hubby and I would sit out there for hours smoking , never did see a smoke fog descend in anywhere. Ya know all the time that we spend on this earth any of us could piss and moan about somebody else doing something that annoys us or else we could just learn to get along and play nice. Perhaps if the offended neighbor had asked nicely the offendees would have just put a fan outside,but sometimes there is no pleasing some people.

[TexasObserver]

185. It's safe to say the defendant neighbor would not have acted without a lawsuit.

She ignored multiple letters.

Perhaps if she and her kids weren't such selfish, insensitive asshats they wouldn't have gotten sued.

[WriteDown]

231. There's always the option of peering over the fence

and actually talking to these neighbors. Apparently, they are always out there LEGALLY smoking.

[DaveinJapan]

265. "mass quantities of smoke", hyperbolize much? nt

[Xithras]

166. My sister once had the police called on her because my neice was sick.

She lived in a condo and one of her neighbors apparently called the police about "unruly children" screaming in the house and ruining the peace of her home. Since the town she lived in had a nuisance noise ordinance, the police responded. In her case, the responding officer was a parent himself and ended up commisserating with her about sick children and crappy neighbors. He told the biddy next door to deal with it, or get a hotel room until the kid got better.

So, yeah, there are people who would happily take action against colicky babies and whining kids.

[tammywammy]

10. Next lawsuit backyard grills

:eyes:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

152. Your bratwurst offends my veggie sensibilities.

I slice onions in your general direction!

[tammywammy]

171. LOL!

Funny thing happened. I ran out on my lunch break to pick up something to eat (forgot my lunch today). Anywho, I'm driving back to work and I'm behind a GMC Blazer that had the stinkiest exhaust. It was smoking really bad. Nasty. And I though, man, I should sue them, that stinks way worse than a cigarette. ;)

[Doremus]

16. No more fireplaces, grilling outdoors, dryer vents.....

Isn't it funny that fireplaces emit the exact same deadly chemicals as cigarettes and nobody ever runs screaming from the room coughing and hacking.

I find that very interesting.

[tammywammy]

18. And I hope they go to the city to stop traffic on the road in front of their house. n/t

[strategery blunder]

21. fireplaces emit formeldahyde? Really?

And any of the other 4000 or so cigarette additives that aren't tobacco? There's a lot of shit and additives in cigarettes that aren't in burning wood.

Hell, I don't even mind secondhand cigar smoke, but I will run across the street to get upwind of a cigarette smoker. (Unfortunately Super-Soakers to extinguish cigarettes aren't practical.) Cigars don't have all that nasty shit added to them. It's the ADDITIVES to the cigarette smoke that have me running coughing and hacking away from you. :)

Edit: forgot the :popcorn:

[Hannah Bell]

38. yes, really. so do forest fires. it's a combustion product.

Background

Formaldehyde (CH2O) is a colorless gas. It is irritating and has a sharp odour. Formaldehyde is widely produced around the world for use as a disinfectant and preservative. It is also used in textile finishing and in the production of resins that act as adhesives and binders for wood products, pulp, paper, glasswool and rockwool, as well as some plastics, coatings, paints and varnishes, and industrial chemicals.

Formaldehyde also enters the Canadian environment through natural sources (e.g., forest fires) and certain human activities, such as smoking tobacco, burning automotive and other fuels, and residential wood burning.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/formaldehyde-eng.php


you probably get more if you have an old wood-burning stove. but since you didn't know it existed, and since it wasn't those icky smokers doing it, it didn't bother you.


there's not "4000" additives in tobacco, btw. nowhere near, despite the propaganda.

[strategery blunder]

273. I need strong ventilation when the chemical is present.

I do not have a woodburning stove, but I am well aware that it is used in cleaners and disinfectants and I will get a dizzy sensation if I am in an environment with high levels of formeldahyde with little ventilation (for this reason I ALWAYS have fans running full blast when cleaning).

Yes I am also sensitive to air quality--I feel the difference when I leave the Pacific Northwest and must travel to a smoggy city (or for that matter, even a dry city). I live in the Pacific Northwest because it is the most favorable region that I have been to for air quality purposes. Washington state also has one of the stricter anti-smoking-in-public laws around.

It's possible that other chemicals/additives are responsible for the dizziness as well, as I have not been allergy-tested. However, force me to stand beside a heavy smoker in calm winds and I will feel dizzy after a minute or two.

There is a subset of the population that is legitimately sensitive to air quality problems, including cigarette smoke. I am part of that population, and thus avoid cigarette smokers. There is some stuff that cannot be avoided, but cigarette smokers (except the asshole kind that will stalk you to blow smoke in your face, fortunately there's not much of that here) can (usually) be avoided.

[Hannah Bell]

285. since you live in washington, where smoking in any public building or business

has been illegal since 2005, & lesser restrictions in place before that, i don't see the circumstance in which you'd ever be forced to sit with someone blowing smoke in your face.

i live in washington, i have never been in a situation in which i was "forced" to endure that - even before the bans were in place.

& i've never had anyone stalk me to blow smoke in my face.

i have, however, been the target of nutty anti-smokers.

[strategery blunder]

288. Not everyone obeys the law.

Most do, but some insist on smoking right next to entrances, etc. It's stuff like that, that I still have to avoid.

You're right in that I live here because pretty much anywhere else in the country is worse, much worse.

I have had smokers follow me around a bus stop when I attempted to walk upwind of them, so I wouldn't have to inhale their smoke, but that has only happened twice.

[sabrina 1]

136. You better run away from every car that passes you by also.

Or better yet, buy a bubble and go live in it. It's an impure world we live in but irritable, up tight, constantly hysterical, nagging individuals are worse for people's health as the create so much stress around them and emanate so many negative vibes such as irrational fear, nasty anti-social behavior, that they probably are more dangerous to be around than all the bad air from all the bad sources we breathe put together. Which is why people run, begging for relief, from people like you.

Oh, and I don't smoke ~ I just don't care if other people do so long as they are not paranoid, negative spoiled, 'me, me, me' kind of people. Nothing worse than that imho. Been around smokers all my life since childhood and am healthier than most of the whiners I know who insulate themselves from the world. Hardly ever even been to a doctor since I grew up.

Try relaxing, your fearful personality will probably cause you more health problems than anything else. Stress is one of the biggest contributors to heart attacks and even cancer some experts say.

[Flaneur]

142. You should encourage your smoking buddies to try American Spirits.

Additive free. Pure tobacco leaf.

[REP]

27. ...well, actually, I can't be around a wood fire long, and fireplace season is hell for me....

But I've never asked anyone to put out the fire in their fireplace, let alone sued over - I just make sure my Azmacort and Atrovent have lots of refills handy.

[cherokeeprogressive]

29. I'm calling my lawyer tomorrow. Interstate 10 is going DOWN! n/t

[Kajsa]

117. LOL!

Not to mention the 405 and the 5!!

:)

[underseasurveyor]

133. Ha Ha Ha Ha

:spray:

[Forkboy]

17. It's a good thing I never started smoking.

Because if I did I'd end up putting my butt out on the foreheads of people like this. :)

[Odin2005]

19. Oh geez. I'm pro- indoor public bans but this is just moronic.

[napi21]

20. I find this very hard to believe! I could see it, I guess, if we were talking about an apartment

or condo complex where there is no yard or the yard is smaller than a livingroom rug, but that's not the case here. Are you trying to tell me there is NO breeze in El Dorado Hills? Do they get just as upset when someone starts their car or burns a log in their fireplace?

Damn fools!

[TexasObserver]

22. Sounds good. The smoke from a neighbor's is a nuisance.

[Occulus]

34. Would you complain about these same neighbors for lighting up coals so they can use their grill? n/t

[Hannah Bell]

40. tobacco smoke has unique properties that arouse moral outrage

& supercilious condemnation from aggressive yuppies.

[AnOhioan]

42. +1

[SmileyRose]

43. Gated communities around this area outlaw outdoor flames

no outdoor burning and no wood burning fireplaces. Well, not all of them but many do.

[TexasObserver]

54. I'm not the one with the complaint. Their neighbors are.

I agree that they have a NUISANCE, and that such nuisance is actionable.

I agree that offensive, noxious smoke is a nuisance in many jurisdictions, and it gives rise to a private cause of action which may be resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.

If your question is whether I think lighting up coals for their grill can be a nuisance, the answer is YES. Listening to music, keeping your dogs, working on your cars - these are all legal uses of your land. That doesn't mean you're free to do whatever you want. Your property rights end at your property boundary, and that applies to the noises and fumes you generate.

Do what you want, but that doesn't mean you can create a nuisance. Can grilling ever be a nuisance? I'm sure it can. It depends on the facts. If you get out there and grill from the time you wake up until you go to bed, and you're generating smoke 10-20 times a day, that would definitely make a nuisance case. If by your actions you are preventing the neighbor from the reasonable quiet enjoyment of his property, you can be sued for nuisance.

[Stinky The Clown]

64. Is ironic entertainment a nuisance or a blessing?

[SammyWinstonJack]

72. How is that 'government ass kissing' working out for you?

:evilgrin:

[TexasObserver]

74. It's not government ass kissing to assert one's right to freely enjoy their yard.

[Heidi]

87. Some have an odd notion of what constitutes government ass kissing.

Those folks probably would consider it government ass kissing to be considerate of their neighbors by inquiring politely, "Do you mind if I smoke out here?" or "I realize you're not a smoker, so I wanted to ask whether my smoking out here is a problem."

[TexasObserver]

101. Indeed. It's not government action, but private action, involved in this case.

When cops kills some tragically impaired person by excessive force and people line up to defend such excess, that is government ass kissing.

Insisting that you be able to enjoy your own backyard free from smoke is merely a person trying to enjoy the property that is likely costing them hundreds or thousands of dollars a month to enjoy.

The neighbor lady does let her own family smoke in her house, which is why they'll all outside smoking.

[sabrina 1]

160. Looks like that is what the smokers were doing

asserting their right to freely enjoy their own yard. Until their paranoid, selfish neighbors decided to start harassing them, first with nasty letters then on to wasting the valuable time of the court to whine to.

I would bet that they are known in the nighborhood. That the smokers checked the law with their attorneys, and were advised to ignore them. That is what a good attorney would advise in a case like this. 'Do not speak to them at all and if they do as they are threatening to do, we will handle it in court'.

The worst thing that ever happened to this country was to give the most authoritarian and parano0idindividuals a reason to believe they can control the lives and habits of others.

There is no evidence whatsoever that is conclusive, that second hand smoke is a threat to anyone. In fact much of the supposed evidence has been debunked. I consider myself perfectly safe among smokers even if I myself do not smoke.

This was merely a tool used by the anti-smoking crowd after they were told that what other people did was none of their business. Control freaks bother me far more than the minimal risk of what we breathe in every day from various sources. I consider them a far bigger threat to my health and well-being overall and avoid them like the plague,

[TexasObserver]

186. The smokers are free to enjoy THEIR property, not free to spoil their neighbor's property.

Which is what they are doing. They right to smoke ends at their property line. If the smoke is noxious, which it appears to be, and ever present, which it appears to be, it could very well be ruled a nuisance. It is a nuisance. Your right to smoke on your property doesn't confer upon you the right to send your smoke wherever you wish.

And it doesn't matter if second hand smoke has or has not been proved to be a danger to others. It's annoying. It brings down property values. It spoils the air others are breathing. That makes it a nuisance.

You want to smoke, that's fine. But do it where the air isn't making its way to the noses of others who don't share your addiction.

[sabrina 1]

193. I'll remember that the next time my neighbor lights a barbecue

I don't care about smoking, I don't smoke. I care far more about individual liberty, especially on one's own property. As long as someone is engaged in a legal activity on one's own property, they should be free from government interference.These two whiners are attempting to bring the law down on them. I am sure they tried the cops first and were told they had no case. Which they don't. Read your 4th Amendment.

When someone invents a way to keep all noxious fumes away from all of us, then you would have a case. If this case had any legitimacy, all factories, energy companies, automobile makers, barbecue manufacters, construction companies and even perfume manufacturers would be in court every day.

Nothing guarantees YOU a perfectly sterile environment. I will say it again, there is NO law forbidding people from legal activities conducted on their own property that cause some over-flow of smoke, barbecues etc., into the air.

I consider these two suers to be a danger to democracy, a far bigger threat than their smoking neighbors to all of us. I hope they are laughed out of court. They would be in any society that values their freedoms.

[TexasObserver]

197. Clearly, you are badly misinformed about the law.

Read my posts in this thread if you want to understand this area better. Your posts only prove your ignorance. The fact that you don't know that nuisance law is well settled and that judges hear injuctions every week for activities that are legal proves you are badly misinformed.

Whether it is playing music too loudly, revving up engines too much, or creating noxious fumes, there are a variety of activities that you can do on your property and give rise to a private cause of action by your neighbor.

The reason people have to be sued is because they think the law is what they want it to be, and so they have to get their asses whipped in court.

[sabrina 1]

207. I read your posts on nuisance law and responded to them.

I said, and will repeat, that the two filing the lawsuit are better subjects for a claim under those laws than the smokers who are bothering no one, engaging in a perfectly legal activity and did not harass their neighbors with threatening letters, as the two suers did.

I would file a counter-suit against them, trust me, claiming them to be a nuisance attempting to deprive me of my Constitutional right to be left alone, while engaging in a perfectly legal activity, without harassment, on my own property.

I have asked you over and over again to state how these two have been harmed. You have failed to explain the 'harm' that would result in 'damages'.

It is the neighbors who are being harmed and if this case were to be given any credibility, a decision in their favor would harm all of us.

You are not very convincing so far. If what you are presenting as a case for them, is going to be their case, they have no claim whatsoever. The case itself is a 'nuisance'.

[TexasObserver]

224. First of all, it's not damages, but injunctive relief, they likely seek.

They have to prove harm or a likelihood of harm to themselves or others on their property. That harm can be physical. They only have to prove the smoke bothers them, and prevents them from enjoying their property.

That would be easily done. Call the plaintiff. Mr. Plaintiff testifies that he has lung problems from exposure to chemicals in Vietnam in the jungles in the 1960s, and he can't breathe around smoke. Consequently, he can never go outside in his own backyard because the neighbors always have the air fouled with their cigar and cigarette smoke. Or Mrs. Plaintiff testifies that the smoke makes it impossible for her to be outside, because it makes her sneeze and cough uncontrollably.

The standard for harm is not a high one for something that involves smells coming from a neighbor. The plaintiffs have a right to walk outside without facing noxious smells, and cigars are noxious all the time, everywhere.

As for monetary damages, that's not part of an injunctive action. That's for dollars, and is designed to pay the plaintiffs for the harm done by the defendant. Such harm could be economic, and satisfied by a broker who testifies the plaintiffs' home is worth 10% less because of the smokers next door, or worse, unsaleable in this bad market because of them.

The monetary damages are not the crux or the point of this case. The point is putting a stop to the encroachment of their smoke on the plaintiffs' property.

[sabrina 1]

249. Well, if they are claiming that the plaintiff's have a medical

condition which is aggravated by smoke, they would have to prove that the neighbors were aware of this. But I am assuming that this is just an example you are proposing that would add weight to their claim. As far as I know, that is not part of the claim in this case.

The law says that smoking is legal. If these two were to prevail, then smoking anywhere would be actionable if someone decided it was. That is not the case, as the law doesn't state that you can only smoke legally so long as there is no smoke fouling up the air, or emitting 'noxious smells'. If that becomes acceptable, the law would have to be changed to include that smoking is legal only if smoke does not result from smoking. It is reasonable to assume that if smoking is legal there will be smoke.

If the plaintiffs are against smoke but the law is not on their side, they have the choice to live in a non-smoking environment.

[TheKentuckian]

26. Wasn't just a couple weeks ago somebody was suing because of

someone smoking in their apartment.

This is bogus. I'm not cool with any of this but the anti's need to pick ONE. There is two ways about it. Either we smoke inside or out but neither doesn't fly.

[cynatnite]

28. My neighbor's chimney smoke about chokes us out when we're outside. n/t

[LynneSin]

92. I feel your pain - I can't leave my front door & windows open during the summer

else I'll have a room full of my neighbor's smoke. But I did say something about it this year. He's a young kid and I said I wouldn't care on the weekend if they were out there smoking but if during the week I could have a few nights during the summer where I could leave my windows open without smoke.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

30. but they were unable to contact the neighbor by telephone and letter

Did they try knocking on his door? or perhaps oh i dont know talkin g to him while he was outside smoking?

These people sound like assholes to me.

[Hannah Bell]

39. since the smoke "hangs like fog" in the assholes' property, those smokers must be out

in the yard smoking a whole heck of a lot!

Seems like it would be easy enough to get ahold of them.

[TexasObserver]

56. If you'd actually read the article, you'd know the defendants don't smoke in THEIR home.

You'd know that they don't allow anyone, even their family smokers, to smoke inside THEIR home. The smokers go outside to the backyard to smoke, and since smokers tend to smoke in quantity, the plaintiffs could be facing noxious smoke many, many times a day.

The reactions by you and others is the reason smokers are being put in their place all over America by citizens sick of you acting as if your bad habit is everyone else's problem but yours. Wanna suck on your cancer stick? Stay at home and stay inside.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

58. LOL and if you had actually read the article

You would notice they never complained or asked the neighbors to stop smoking they just filed a lawsuit. That spells asshole with a capital A.

[TexasObserver]

60. That's incorrect. The article states that defendants ignored letters from plaintiffs.

"A lawyer for the Solones said they want to live peacefully with their neighbors but he said the letters the Ganguets wrote were intimidating because they threatened a lawsuit."

If you had read the entire article, you'd have seen that the plaintiffs clearly sent more than one letter to the defendants, who admit they ignored the letters because they threatened legal action. And when they ignored those multiple letters, they got sued.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

78. You are right they did send "letters"

Threatening letters but letters just the same. Course I would expect a little more from my next door neighbor.

Like maybe a "Hey there neighbor! I notice your kids are smoking outside all the time and its realy bugging my wife and I you think maybe they could cut down on it or maybe take it somewhere else."

Long before I would start sending threatening letters.

These are GET OFF MY LAWN ! kind of people and my statement stands they are assholes.

[TexasObserver]

102. We don't know everything that they did, but we do know they sent multiple letters.

We know that the defendant has admitted she got the letters and that she did not respond to them because she didn't like it that they were threatening litigation.

They might have said something to her previously. They may have complained to the association. We do not know. We do know the defendant didn't respond to the letters, and did not discuss the matter with her smoking adult children, because her son said so.

Instead of presuming those complaining are the problem, you'd do better to recognize the unreasonable person is the defendant. She doesn't allow smoking in her home, so she sends her kids outside to annoy the neighbors.

[WriteDown]

233. Why do they have to respond to the letters?

I would've crumpled them up and thrown them away. They are engaging in a legal activity. I could care less if my neighbor sent me a DVD with a video reenactment.

[TexasObserver]

246. Great. Then you'd be sued.

The letter is for the plaintiffs' benefit. It proves they tried to get you to act reasonably, and by your conduct you prove that you cannot do so.

The letter is part of the plaintiffs' proof in their case against you. By tossing their letter aside, a fact of which you would no doubt boast, you would show yourself to be uncaring and unreasonable.

[WriteDown]

248. I hope they make sure to coutner-sue for all the neighbors

are worth. Either the activity is legal or its not. I have no doubt that the only "solution" that the suers would accept is if their neighbors stopped smoking completely.

[Hannah Bell]

301. when i have a minor beef with my neighbors, i don't send them letters,

i go next door & talk to them.

the fact this common courtesy never occurred tells me they're idiots.

[snagglepuss]

69. Totally agree with your posts. Their not smoking inside suggests to me

that they smoke alot and they don't want the house to reek. A friend used to complain about his Mom's place reeking of smoke. I thought he was exaggerating as I wondered how much smoke can one person generate. However I once went over and I was bowled over. It was unbelievable his Mom didn't smoke when Steve visited but everything reeked.

With regards to outside, if the weather is warm and there is no breeze smoke hangs outside and cigar smoke is the worst. It does not dissipate. I don't mind the smell of a cigar if I'm walking past someone smoking but to sit outside anywhere cigar smoke is unbearable.

[TexasObserver]

71. Since the defendant's home has 3 adult smokers, it's a big problem.

Clearly, the lady who is the defendant, who owns the home, does not allow her 3 adult family members to smoke in her house. She makes them go outside, so as not to stink up and foul the air of her home. Cigarette smoke smell really lowers the value of a home, too. Once it is in the carpets, on the walls, in the air ducts, it's going to be smelled by non smokers.

The article says her SON says he didn't know about the matter until the lawsuit was filed, but that's because his mother must not have told him about the letters she got from the plaintiffs complaining about it and threatening legal action. We know there were at least two such letters, because the article uses the terms "letters," not "letter."

This woman got at least two letters complaining about it before the lawsuit was filed, and by her own admission, she failed to respond because she didn't like the fact that they threatened a lawsuit.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

79. Or probably the fact that her crabby ass neighbors couldnt bother themselves

to talk to her before they started sending threatening letters?

[Heidi]

98. In my opinion, the smokers should have inquired politely BEFORE they began fouling the shared air

about whether their neighbors would mind if they smoked in the yard. Yep, it's the defendant's yard, but the air is shared, and I don't believe it's unreasonable to expect neighbors to be considerate of one another.

[snagglepuss]

199. Kudos . Your suggestion the ESSENCE of civility and charm.

How different would it have been if they had been so gracious to acknowledge the reality that smoke drifts into nieghbouring gardens and to enquire whether the nieghbour minded.

Perhaps the niebours could agree that smokers could smoke in the front yard as a compromise. But rather than proceed that way the smokers set up a situation where a confrontation is required.

[TexasObserver]

104. You're jumping to unwarranted conclusions again.

You don't know what happened before the letters. You don't know if their attorney talked to this defendant or tried to talk to her. You do know she ignored at least two letters.

You don't like it when people get threatening letters from lawyers. Too bad. That's how a case like this gets made. First, you must establish you've tried to get them to voluntarily correct the problem. You have to be able to prove in court you gave them notice, what you said, and how they responded. If you want to prove the components of extraordinary relief - TRO and Injunction - you have to lay the proper predicate, and part of that is proving you've acted reasonably, you've given the defendant a chance to alter their conduct, and they have failed to respond or act accordingly.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

140. And that my friend is exactly why this country is going to shit.

because assholes like those two don't take the time to talk to their neighbors, they take em to court instead. You don't know they did talk to the woman. You do know they didn't talk to the people actually doing the smoking. Which would have been simple for them to do if the smoke was reaching far enough for it to bother them.

[NashVegas]

172. + 87

[TexasObserver]

187. I know the defendant failed to act after getting at least two letters.

I know that she doesn't allow her kids and their spouses to smoke in HER house.

I know that she doesn't feel any need to correct a problem that she and her kids have created.

If you want to believe that this woman would have acted if only approached right, you can believe that. Fortunately, I have experience dealing with people on matters that end up in court for injunctions, and they almost never respond to talk, or letters. Why? Because they're jackasses. That's why they have to be sued. Because they're inconsiderate jackasses, like this bunch of smokers and their mother.

[WriteDown]

234. How would you have them "correct" the problem? nt

[TexasObserver]

252. I would propose a compromise.

In today's world of civil litigation, there is a standard that requires most cases to be sent to mediation for an attempt at settlement. These sessions often last all day, and they require both sides to show up with parties and lawyers, and to sit with a mediator all day long. The mediator puts the two sides (or however many sides there are) in separate caucus rooms, and the process begins in earnest.

The first few hours are spent arguing fact and law points to the mediator, and telling the mediator which of those he or she can repeat to the other side. This process helps both sides to see the strengths of the other side and their own weaknesses. This process therefore helps soften up the parties for phase two, getting them to start negotiating on a solution.

Mediators often settle in excess of 80% of the cases they mediate. Everyone is better served by a settlement the parties agree to among themselves. Any time you actually go hearing or trial, there is no way to guarantee an outcome. That is what settles cases. Well that, and paying lawyers becomes a burden.

Cases settle when everyone is sick of them on both sides.

This case? I'd have them agree to some reasonable schedule for times there will be no smoking outside, times that help to accommodate the plaintiffs. I would want the defendants to install a quality smoke filtering device where they stand or sit to smoke, but I would want the plaintiffs to pay for that device.

[WriteDown]

254. And how much would this cost the defendants?

?

[TexasObserver]

256. The electricity to run the air filter when they smoke.

They're already parties to a lawsuit, so they can get a lawyer or represent themselves. Either way, they'll have to pay half of the mediator's fees, which is likely at least $2000 a day. And they'll have to pay their own attorney.

Like I said, they shouldn't have ignored those letters.
----------------------

You asked what solution I would favor and I told you. That's not the kind of result if the case is tried. If that happens, one side wins and one loses.

[WriteDown]

257. And if they didn't ignore the letters, but said politely

that they didn't think their smoking in their own yard was a problem how much would it have cost them then?

[FormerDittoHead]

139. Understand what's implied here... RANT TIME

>they smoke alot and they don't want the house to reek.

But smokers can't smell that reek. I know that from my inlaws - they become insensitive to it.

SO WHY DON'T THEY SMOKE INSIDE? (rant)

THEY DON'T SMOKE INSIDE BECAUSE THEY *KNOW* THAT *OTHER* PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT.

Either the people they have over for company, the people they try to sell stuff to on eBay ("comes from a smoke free home" must appear on more than half the listings), and the people who, in the future, might buy their house.

THEY *UNDERSTAND* THAT PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE SMELL BUT *THEY'RE* UNWILLING TO PAY THE *ECONOMIC* PRICE OF THEIR SMOKING.

Smoke indoors. Piss off THEIR friends, sacrifice the value of their home and belongings due to THEIR SMOKE. THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY THE *PRICE* OF THEIR HABIT.

Now, I don't know how "sensitive" these plaintiffs are being. I've got a PROFESSIONAL pain in the ass neighbor (tip: NEVER move in next to a lawyer) so I have an open mind about that.

Maybe the plaintiffs ARE pains in the asses, but the fact is that the smokers in this case can't say that they don't understand how other people could be "so" offended by the smell, even indirectly, when by their own behavior they accept that people have a problem with it, even when indirect.

[snagglepuss]

191. BINGO.

:applause:

[TexasObserver]

198. Yes. The defendant doesn't want smoke in her house.

That's why she makes her brats go outside to suck on their cancer sticks.

[sabrina 1]

215. You're assuming they don't smoke inside as well.

People who smoke, smoke both inside and outside.

[TexasObserver]

228. The article says the Defendant makes her kids smoke outside.

They don't smoke inside at all. She won't let them.

[FormerDittoHead]

245. Yes. Usually. Read the story.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/11/01/Couple-sues-Neighbors-smoke-outdoors/UPI-15301257122542/

...Steve Solone, Florence Solone's son, said he, his sister and brother-in-law live with his mother and they smoke outdoors.

"My mother doesn't allow smoking in the house," he said.

[sabrina 1]

253. Thanks, I hadn't read that ~

She allows them to smoke on her property. So, I see no basis for this lawsuit whatsoever. Seems frivolous and should be thrown out and I hope it will be.

[Hannah Bell]

229. if you'd read my post, you'd know i never said they did. i said they smoked in their

yard, and that's where the asshole neighbors could find them, obviously.

though the assholes insist they couldn't contact the neighbors who are supposedly smoking so fiercely that they create a heavy "fog" in the asshole's yard.

[TexasObserver]

55. That's incorrect. The plaintiffs sent a letter, which the defendants ignored.

It you will read to its conclusion the story published, it makes clear the plaintiffs first sent a letter to the defendants, who stated they ignored the letter BECAUSE IT THREATENED LEGAL ACTION.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

57. sorry but no

"He said didn't know the smoke was a problem until his mother learned of the lawsuit, which was filed Oct. 1."

My point is maybe they should have talked to their neighbor before filing a lawsuit.

Pretty crappy way to treat a neighbor IMHO dont ask him to stop just file a law suit how nice of them.

[TexasObserver]

59. Sorry, but YES, they did send a letter and it's in the article you didn't read.

Here is what it says at the bottom of the article:

"A lawyer for the Solones (defendants) said they want to live peacefully with their neighbors but he said the letters the Ganguets (plaintiffs) wrote were intimidating because they threatened a lawsuit."

The plaintiffs wrote to the defendants more than once, according to this statement, BEFORE they filed a lawsuit. You don't threaten to file a lawsuit by letter AFTER you've already filed a lawsuit. You cannot threaten to do something you've already done.

Clearly, the defendants ignored more than one letter from the plaintiffs about this problem, letters which threatened legal action. This is your chance to read the entire article.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

75. My mistake they did send a letter before the actual suit

I still say its an asshole thing to do. They live right next door not too hard especially with the kids smoking outside to poke your head out and talk to them about it before sending threatening letters.


And how did those letters go do you think? My bet is they werent nice. I bet they were closer to "listen jerk if you dont stop smoking next door we are going to sue your ass off!"

Either way nice way to treat your neighbors.

[uncle ray]

112. you are expecting a level of niceness that the smokers did not themselves extend.

th smoke over the fence was the first "FUCK YOU".

it is fairly obvious that people that would ignore the letters because they didn't like the tone would not be very neighborly in a face to face discussion. it seems perfectly reasonable that in the environment of a gated community, conflict resolution would start with a paper trail. when the HOA takes action, it is, no doubt, in writing. that is how these people are used to dealing with such matters. the plaintiffs probably helped their case by purposely avoiding a dramatic Hattfield v. McCoy feud.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

144. Sorry smoking outside does not equal FUCK YOU

At least not yet.

[snagglepuss]

240. +1

[Manifestor_of_Light]

202. thanks for explaining nuisances to these people.

I'm a broken down ex-court reporter with a very useless J.D. degree.

[TexasObserver]

217. OMG! Someone familiar with it!

You know very well that every week there are injunctions about things exactly like the one in the OP. Every week in every major metro area, there are many injunctions heard, and many involve things like a neighbor burning trash, or the wrong kind of trash, or their dogs barking too much, or their trash stacking up too much, or the people who make too much noise, or whatever.

Those who are objecting so strenously in this thread to the plaintiffs' action fail to see that the problem is on their side of the fence. If the air didn't make its way over there, they wouldn't care. Air is shared. That's why we have air quality control laws and standards. That's why we have nuisance statutes that ALWAYS list SMOKE as one of the bases for a Nuisance action.

I hope you will contribute some of your knowledge in these threads. There's a significant group here who hate lawyers, hate law, hate anyone who sues anyone else, unless they're pissed about something, then it's "I ought to get a lawyer and sue them for a million dollars!"

[Manifestor_of_Light]

313. Yes I do give legal opinions.

I was a legal secretary for my dad. My dad went to law school at night on the GI bill while working. My mom typed for him. When my sister and I got old enough, we did a lot of his typing. Then he suggested that I go to court reporting school, which I did, and made straight A's in. Also got a BA in Biology and went to the same exact law school dad did(South Texas College of Law), worked at the courthouse as a reporter, and earned my J.D. 34 years after he did. So I grew up around this stuff, soaked it in without even realizing it. Those two degrees were a total waste of time as far as getting me a job, but they were useful knowledge.

I took the Texas bar three times and did not pass it. I'm not sure why. I was already sick of the craziness at the courthouse from 20 years of court reporting, so it didn't really bother me too much to not pass the bar. They crank too many lawyers out as it is. If there were any legal jobs out there, I should be training trial attorneys. But I'm not. I'm prematurely retired.

Some people don't understand "quiet enjoyment" and such.

And I've given speeches here about why tort reform is a sham and what really happens -- good doctors get screwed out of their money for malpractice premiums, bad doctors just move to another state or keep practicing, because the state boards will not discipline them properly, and the insurance companies rake the money in. Juries end up making seriously injured plaintiffs a burden on the taxpayers, when a doctor & hospital who committed malpractice should have been made to pay and should have had his license yanked. I've seen that happen more than once.

Doctors don't like it when you tell them the problem is their failure to discipline the hacks and the alcoholics and the junkies.

I worked for a judge in Houston in Civil District Court that LOVED hearing TIs and TROs. If the city wanted to close a massage parlor that was a front for prostitution, the City Attorney would sue the property owner and have it declared a public nuisance. Cops who had busted the place would testify as to the character of the encounters they had with the employees, and the illegality thereof........they didn't pay me enough to listen to that crap!!!!! :rofl:

The bailiff and I had a helluva time trying not to fall out in the floor laughing.
And I had to bang on a Stenograph and concentrate too!!!!

[snagglepuss]

201. As Heidi states downthread why didn't the smokers first enquire if the

nieghbours minded the smoke? That would be the niegbourly thing to do.

[underseasurveyor]

205. So now they should have asked for their neighbours approval?

:wtf:

[snagglepuss]

214. The question of neighborliness has been raised. The essence of being

neighborly is being considerate. I would say the same thing if someone was going to saw down a tree at 8:00 am on a Sunday. The neighborly thing to do would be to inquire whether neighbors minded noise on a Sunday morning.

The concept of neighborliness in many of these posts is simply "I'll do whatever the f**k I want, and if you don't like it suck it up and if you don't want to suck it than I dare you to confront me"

[underseasurveyor]

222. Noise restrictions are one thing

And yes being neighbourly is nice an all however if I choose to smoke on my property, and smoking is legal, then I hardly feel the need to ask my neighbours if they mind. But let's say the smoker does ask.. Then if the neighbour says that they do mind chances are the smoker is going to light up anyway. If my neighbour wishes to try and infringe on my right to enjoy my property in such a manner, only when that neighbour pays half of my rent or mortgage will I consider that the neighbour can have any say on what I can legally do in my own backyard.

What's next.. I can't plant marigolds or daisies because my neighbour has allergies?

[snagglepuss]

235. What you describe is a "screw you" attitude. Let's just be clear then that

such an attitude is not nieghbourly. What is disappointing is that the attitudes you describe here echo attitudes freepers voice about government health care or any other initiative that freepers view as limiting their personal freedom.

[underseasurveyor]

302. Well if that's your take on it that's fine, but that isn't how I see it.

I'm all for being neighbourly and all but what I'm sick n tired of is what has become a...
-If you would just do things my way and be more like me, THEN I'd be happy- self appointed hall monitor attitude that take themselves so darn seriously as to actually think they have a justified cause and reason to impose THEIR ideals and life style on anyone that happens to be within 25 ft of them. Ever hear of Live and Let Live? I'm guessing not.

So in response to your loose comparison of my attitude echoing a freeper? I can handle that and take no offense to it because I know that the last thing in this world that I am is a freeper. And BTW I believe that's against the rules.

However your echos and attitudes are very reminiscent of religious cults. Trying to use guilt, insult and shame to get your way and try to IMPOSE your ideals/beliefs on everyone else. Perhaps you might consider that.

Even? I thought so.

I tell you what is disappointing. The difference between me and you? Is I don't give a damn what you do in your own backyard. Sad you can't allow others the same courtesy.

[tammywammy]

264. Yes, that's a good point

What if my neighbor was allergic to roses, would I be forbidden to plant any roses on my property? Or heck even just allergic to pollen, would I be forbidden to plant anything that could produce pollen and then limit their outdoor activities?

[NashVegas]

170. Aye. Confrontation By Lawsuit

From people who quake in their shoes at the idea of a personal confrontation.

[proteus_lives]

33. I they lose so hard.

These has no basis.

[WVRICK13]

44. Fascism is Fascism

I don't care how you cut it. If you live in California smoke in your back yard is nothing compared to fumes form the freeway.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

83. you're a freedumb fighter!

Fight the Power!

[rd_kent]

93. Still waiting on you to explain fascism.....

and how this is fascism....

[WVRICK13]

308. Fascism

When the neighbors seeks the governments help to prevent someone from engaging in a legal activity on their own property it seems pretty fascist to me. I am way left, but fascism can be left or right and this kind of control over what you do on your own property is against the precepts of freedom. Seriously, two seniors smoking in the open air cannot leave that high a concentration of smoke in the average lawn next door. Air moves usually and smoke dissipates. It isn't like they are on a condo balcony.

[graywarrior]

47. Gated Community says it all

Those people will cut your heart out with a spoon. lol.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

48. It's Garrison Keillor's The End of the Trail come to pass

The End of the Trail was a short parody he wrote that was published in the Sept. 17th, 1984 New Yorker. The full text is available on the New Yorker website if you sbscribe to the magazine. Believe it or not, I have always remembered it all this years.

"The last cigarette smokers in America were located in a box canyon south of Donner Pass in the High Sierra by 2 federal tobacco agents in a helicopter who spotted little smoke puffs just before noon. The district chief called in the ground team & 6 men, members of a crack anti-smoking joggers unit, moved across the terrain, surrounding & subduing them with tear gas."

[TransitJohn]

49. I guess it's time to sue every one of my neighbors

they all have vehicles, and their exhaust settles like a fog in my yard.

[KurtNYC]

111. If they just idle their engines 30 times a day for about 10 minutes

each time, and you have tried to communicate with them by letter etc about the problem, then you may have a case.

[Stevenmarc]

52. They need to move to another gated community, a psychiatric hospital

[Vinca]

53. If the smokers are creating an atmosphere so toxic that people

can't enjoy their property, it's a valid complaint.

[seabeyond]

62. more selfish and self centered people seeing the world as theirs and everyone is to accommodate.

these people on the scale dont even reach the point of mild concern. they can grow up. oh hey, wait, they are old and still, they cant share the world.

suck it up

[krabigirl]

122. Yep. Complete idiots. They will lose the lawsuit.

[TCJ70]

65. I'm all for indoor smoking bans on businesses, but this is ridiculous. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

66. So they can smell the smoke but not shout over the fence?

They can not knock on the door, leave a note? And has anyone actually seen cigarette smoke settle like a fog? It does not do that. Which is why no one has ever seen such a thing. And again, fog banks of smoke, but sound does not carry?
These people are liars.

[Kalyke]

68. Good Lord, when are these smoking Nazi's going to get a life?

The pollution in California is probably worse than cigarette smoke several yards away.

:eyes:

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

84. You Lose Two Ways With This Post

First, the ridiculous comparison to Nazism is pathetic. Secondly, learn the difference between the plural and possessive forms of proper nouns, will you please? You make my brain hurt.

[LynneSin]

195. Hot damn!! What a way to burst into DU: +1

I hate the Nazi reference.

[sabrina 1]

266. S/he's hurting your brain? You have a lawsuit! n/t

[Buns_of_Fire]

76. Oh, heck. Just taze 'em. It's The American Way!

:patriot:

Would Ben, and Hoss, and Little Joe have put up with smoking on the Ponderosa? HECK NO! (Adam had an occasional cigar and how much have you heard from him lately?) Would Jeannie have blinked Major Nelson to the fourth moon of Saturn if he lit up a Devil Stick? YOU BET SHE WOULD HAVE! Did Sam Houston just light up a corncob when the Nazis attacked the Alamo? OF COURSE HE DIDN'T!

Thank God they haven't outlawed popcorn yet. I love these threads.:popcorn:

[seabeyond]

95. fuck taze.... they might live. just shoot 'em. or hang 'em then it can be made public. nt

[MilesColtrane]

77. I hope the judge says,...

"Buy a fan. Case dismissed."

[rd_kent]

105. Buy a fan?

That will help how?

[MilesColtrane]

167. Play dumb much?

[rd_kent]

180. No. Give dumb answers much?

Just wondering what kind of fan one would need to prevent smoke form crossing over the fence, outside......

[MilesColtrane]

188. .

[rd_kent]

206. So, other than an attempt to insult me you have no answer?

[MilesColtrane]

236. Get a fan.

Aim it at the smoke.

Turn it on.

Is that simple enough for you?

[rd_kent]

282. Yes, you are simple.....

if you think a fan will keep smoke away from you OUTSIDE.

[cherish44]

81. My neighbor has this butt ugly garden gnome I have to look at

And I think it might be possessed by Satan because I swear its eyes follow me. I'm in therapy now because of this gnome and my children can't play outside because it's just so offensive. I asked him to move it because it was so hideous and scaring my kids and he told me to 'go fuck myself'. I think the stress of this is giving me a brain tumor.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

156. Their Right To Gnomes End At Your Eyes Dammit!!!!!

[WriteDown]

260. This him?

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

82. Nazis?? Fascism??

Methinks some of you need a bit of perspective. Comparing the Holocaust to the right to a poison-free home environment seems a bit unbalanced....but maybe its just me.

[WriteDown]

86. Its like when MJ finally becomes legal...

I'm going to sue the first person I can find who pollutes my environment with it. And the great thing is that I'll have precedent. Will be an easy way to cash in. What right do they have to expose me to a drug?

[krabigirl]

123. That won't be too easy if your neighbors know what they are doing. :)

smoking is outdated....

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

126. Don't Criticize It!

Just Vaporize it!! :)

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

125. riiiight

..because smoking in public will be legal if its MJ?? Uhuh. You sure pegged that one.

[WriteDown]

147. Backyards are public?

Who knew.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

149. air is public, genius

Unless you can get your smoke to stop at your fence. Really, is that the best you can manage?

[WriteDown]

153. No more bbq's, fire pits, citronella candles, etc.

I'm sure you'll get behind this policy. Is that really the best you can manage.

Oh, and no one better spray their lawn with fertilizer of insecticide.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

157. if they damage other people's homes or health

then you are damn right. Haven't you ever heard of pollution laws? Do you want to invalidate those too?

And yes, we ban pesticides too. Wow. You really don't get it.

[WriteDown]

158. So a cigarette smoked outside is damaging their neighbors

health? :rofl:

They better never start a car in their driveway then. That exhaust could just drift right over. :rofl:

That reminds me, I've got to spray my lawn for its winter treatment .

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

161. duplicate

oops!

[WriteDown]

164. Really?

I can't drive my 70 Nova anymore? Where is this banned list? :rofl:

I had a friend who tried to kill himself by running the car with the garage door closed. Luckily, the exhaust is so pure now that it had zero effect. :rofl: :rofl:

But I can use pesticides and they are poison, right? They may even drift into my neighbors yard, right?

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

209. I'm Sorry

Are there or are there not emission laws? Why do they exist?

Are you not aware that there are many banned pesticides you cannot use because they cause cancer?

Wow, just...wow.

[WriteDown]

213. And smoking a cigarette in your back yard is legal, right?

Right?

So regular pesticides are not poisonous? Really?

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

162. If your car is a POS then it IS banned

that is why we have emissions laws. And again, there are limits to which pesticides you can use and how often you use them.

Really, try to think in slightly more nuanced terms and you'll get it eventually.

[spoony]

169. Quite right.

It's the addiction talking, I think.

[LynneSin]

89. I can't even leave my front door open and enjoy a cool summer breeze at night

Because my neighbor smokes like a chimney on his front porch.

Mind you I live in row homes - but if he would just smoke out back - I rarely use anything back there.

I guess according to some of you I should just STFU and leave my door & windows shut all summer long. I did mention something about perhaps using out back from time to time - he has a nice deck out back and I have a crappy backyard I never use.

[Stevenmarc]

137. Maybe

he doesn't go on his nice deck because it overlooks a crappy backyard.

[LynneSin]

143. We have a fence between us that goes up about 7 feet

so unless my smoking neighbor happens to be Kareem Abdul Jabbar - I highly doubt he can see that crappy backyard.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

146. His Right To Poison You

is apparently more important than your right to health.

Seriously, isn't this supposed to be a progressive site? I'm a bit stunned by all this nonsense.

[DaveinJapan]

263. Have you politely explained the situation to him about wanting to open the windows

and asked him if it might be possible for him to smoke out back?

That seems to be the part that is missing in all of these conversations (including the OP, I keep wondering why they couldn't call over the fence or something, or hell how about pick up a nice smoke eater ashtray and give it to them as a present?).

Just sayin. All this sue sue sue talk (not you Lynne, but others) is completely ridiculous. Don't people even KNOW how to communicate any more?

[moc]

287. My husband's best friend lives in a row house. His neighbor smokes so much

that the clothes in my husband's friend's house smell of smoke. My husband just came back from visiting his friend, and his clothes reeked. Blech. I feel for you.

[EndersDame]

299. Have you tried talking face to face in a polite manner with your neighbor

I have found that simple problems can be resolved if neighbors weren't too shy to talk to each other and sow respect for one another

[Name removed]

94. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[-..__...]

96. Only in CA.

Why am I not surprised.

:eyes:

[winyanstaz]

97. wouldnt it be cheaper if they just bought a fan?

[seabeyond]

99. if i were really really bothered, i would merely point a fan in that direction

it has to be so slight. a fan not a big deal. problem solved, outrage gone. but noooooo..... too simple. to civil

i agree. first thing i thought about

[imdjh]

103. fuck these people

[TwilightGardener]

108. This has to be a first. If it does turn into a suit, it better get tossed out.

Otherwise, we're now on a slippery slope to where you can get sued for fumes or smoke from using a fireplace, a lawnmower, etc.

[Nye Bevan]

109. I have no problem at all with people smoking

provided that I never have to smell their cigarette smoke. Causing me to inhale your secondhand smoke is equivalent to me placing a small drop of my urine on your sandwich before you eat it. It's gross because I am making you ingest something that was in my body. It's unpleasant, but only for a short time; once you have swallowed it the taste will quickly disappear. It's very likely medically harmless; after all, urine is a sterile liquid. But it's undeniable that it's disgusting, and I should really keep my urine away from you. I feel the same about your secondhand smoke.

Why can't smokers chew nicotine gum instead? Then they can satisfy their addiction without annoying people who don't like the disgusting smell. They can even chew the gum in a restaurant, so they don't have to stink up the entrance, and they can chew while working in the office, so no need to take a 25 minute smoke break 3 times a day, leaving the rest of us to pick up the slack, and then coming back into the office stinking up the place with all the smoke stuck to their clothes.

[WriteDown]

110. True, its annoying like when people breathe...

Why should I have to breathe air that has been in other people's body. It's gross. :eyes:

[rubberducky]

120. People who sneeze in public without covering thier mouth really iritate me, but

I can`t even imagine running over to piss on thier food. Some people just need to get a real life.

[Vickers]

127. My next-door neighbors smoke outside and it bugs the hell out of me.

But then I reckon there are some things I do that bug them, too.

[Arugula Latte]

134. I hope they win the case.

The "smoking nazis" are the ones blowing their stinking, carcinogenic smoke into other peoples' lungs.

[Lilith Velkor]

297. If their smoke is getting into your lungs from across the street, you need to quit sucking so hard.

[cherish44]

135. Where I used to work people would go outside and smoke during their lunch break

they had their own little smokers area with seats and ashtrays. Sometimes there would be 10 of them and they'd smoke and eat in the spot the entire lunch hour. Never once did I see a fog of lingering smoke. It pretty much dissipitated into the air. Sometimes when it was windy I could smell it but overall it smelled no worse than many of the things that occur in nature.

Sorry but people should allowed to smoke in their yards. These neighbors are just bitchinng because they are self-righteous control freaks who aren't happy unless they're being a pain in the ass to someone. "Don't pollute my air with your smoke"... oh shuddup and go get laid or do something to take your mind off it.

[Romulox]

138. As an ex-smoker, I've seen both sides, and the smell lingers much longer than the visible smoke.

:hi:

[imdjh]

182. One of the side effects of antismoking are stink zones but also social zones

At my hospital as you walk down the hallway to Skilled Nursing, all of a sudden you can smell old cigarettes. The smell is coming from a patio which is the only place on the hospital campus where smoking is permitted.

Now the funny thing about this patio is, that it's also the only place in the hospital where doctors, nurses, other staff, patients, and visitors talk to each other like people.

Still, it's odd that an outdoor area holds the odor like that, but it's been the official smoking patio for ten years so it's on the bricks, furniture, umbrellas, etc...

[Romulox]

250. Believe it or not, smokers can't smell it. That's a HUGE part of this problem

I always tried to be a considerate smoker, but when my University instituted a "no smoking within 100 feet of a building entrance" rule, I thought they'd just gone too far.

Flash forward many years, and now, as an ex-smoker (and somebody who wears a suit on occasion,) I feel like I'm walking through a cloud of foul (tempting!) odor to enter most public buildings, even if the smoker is already gone. Since I had smoked all of my adult (and part of my childhood) life, I just didn't know how strong the smell was to non-smokers, as hard as that may to believe. I would've complied a lot more readily back in college if I had known...

Smoking really suppresses your sense of smell. My guess is that a lot of the smokers can't really recognize that the hallway at your hospital has a strong cigarette smell (let alone their hair, car, fingers, clothes, etc. etc.)

[TwilightGardener]

175. I have the feeling they just don't like these particular neighbors.

Maybe just don't like the way they hang around outside. Probably the plaintiffs are hoping that they get fed up and move because of the legal harassment. "We'd like to move but the cloud of smoke in our backyard will deter buyers" has to be the most ridiculous bullshit excuse ever.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

148. Man I Wish I Lived Near Them. I Would Use A Whole Day To Just Stand On The Sidewalk Chain Smoking.

In fact, I wish there was a group motivated enough in the area to stage a protest and all just stand outside their home chainsmoking. That would be awesome!

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

154. is that anti-cancer ribbon supposed to be ironic

or are you just one of the largest sufferers of cognitive dissonance ever born?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

159. Nope. Course, This Has NOTHING To Do With Cancer.

Would LOVE to blow smoke towards them all day if I could. Heck, would love to do it to you too to be honest.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

163. I can run faster than you!

Really, I do appreciate the curmudgeon pose, but grow up. How sad.

On edit: poor taste in music, poor taste in habits. I wonder if there is a connection?

Seriously, hair metal sucks and as is at least as offensive as Marlboro smoke. Ugh.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

165. Betcha You Can't.

And when I catch ya, I'm gonna tie you up and blow smoke right in your face for hours while laughing my ass off.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

174. What A Tough Guy!

I bet it comes with the idiocy of smoking while claiming to be anti-cancer. Once you can embrace that contradiction anything is possible.

I just hope you don't poison family members the same way. All this foolishness online is fun, but....well, you live your life and rock on, brave cancer warrior. Good luck.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

212. Wait... So Because I Smoke I Can't Be Anti-Cancer? That's The Dumbest Thing I've Ever Heard.

First off genius, the pink ribbon is breast cancer not lung cancer.

Second of all genius, just because someone smokes doesn't mean they embrace cancer and think it's criminal that cancer gets such a bad rap and stuff.

Third of all genius, pot smoking can cause cancer as well, so while you're all up on your hypocrisy horse and stuff, well, ya know...

[Starbucks Anarchist]

275. No, pot smoking does not cause cancer.

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

290. Oh No Genius?

http://www.examiner.com/x-3731-Houston-Cancer-Examiner~y2009m2d23-Smoking-pot-Can-marijuana-cause-testicular-cancer

I could paste a gazillion more links if I had to. Not sure how many more you've got :rofl:

:hi:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

295. Here's one that casts doubt on that exact same study:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7869709.stm

Henry Scowcroft, from Cancer Research UK, said: "As the researchers themselves point out, this is the first inkling that there is any association between chronic marijuana use and testicular cancer.

"But the researchers only interviewed a relatively small number of men.

"So before we can reach any firm conclusions about whether this is a cause-and-effect relationship, rather than a statistical blip, the result needs to be replicated in a much larger study."

So you're citing something that hasn't been concretely proven with repeated studies and that uses a statistically small sample.

Then again, you won't listen to logic. In fact, there's a very high chance you'll respond in your usual fashion -- "You're Just An Ignoramus," etc. (What's up with the constant caps? Do you have an inferiority complex?)

[rd_kent]

178. I see that you are really concerned with finding a solution to the problem

and that acting like an asshole would be the furthest from your mind......

[Taverner]

151. Second hand smoke is only dangerous indoors

And I'm serious here

[rd_kent]

179. Perhaps you could be serious with some proof?

[Nye Bevan]

190. It may not be *dangerous* outdoors but it's still annoying

And I don't see why someone has the right to annoy me just because they happen to suffer from a powerful addiction to a chemical.

[nc4bo]

181. They couldn't live in my neck o' the woods. People burn it all out here.

Heck even Fort Bragg burns off acres here and it'll have you looking for an O2 mask asap.

A little tobacco smoke would probably be seen as a relief.

This whole thing sounds stupid.

[RetroLounge]

192. What a pair of asshats... (Donna and Richard Ganguet )

:eyes:

RL

[Throd]

204. I live in El Dorado Hills. Barbecues seem to be something of a religion around here.

I guarantee that on any given night someone within a few houses of them is roastin' some form of animal carcass.

I think they should be more concerned with all the smog that drifts over from Sacramento

[NeedleCast]

219. Intolerant American Strikes Again

Question:

If the peeps next door are outside smoking so much that it creates a pall of smoke that settles in the yard, why would the people suing have any trouble contacting them. They're in their fucking back yard.

[Hekate]

227. Yikes! You've met my neighbors! ... Oh no, it's another couple just like them...

The world is full of obsessives with a sense of entitlement. Good lord, social opprobrium for a bad habit is one thing, but a lawsuit?

Hekate

[Dollface]

239. I've seen the future. You know what it is?

It's a 47-year-old virgin, sitting around in pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing, "I'm an Oscar Meyer wiener."

[walldude]

255. Fucking Bingo! +1

We are turning into the biggest nation of wusses I have ever seen. And the worst thing is there isn't a person on here that hasn't done something that has adversely affected someone else's health. It's just OK when they do it because the fumes from their shit spewing car is so much better than the ones from a cigarette. Or the propane from their grill or the smoke from their chimney.

I noticed one holier than thou up there claiming that "there are emission standards". Yeah if your car is so fucking clean prove it. Start it up in your garage and sit in there for an hour with it running.

[sabrina 1]

271. Good post. But you're making sense, and the control obsessed

are not exactly rational. Telling them they have bad habits that have offended others just doesn't register with them. They have found something to cling to to make themselves feel superior. So obsessed with this weapon are they, they do not realize that they are breathing in poison every day, and also spreading it around themselves from so many far more toxic sources.

For the anti-smoker, there is only one crime in the entire world. They are the kind of people who got us the vile and failed 'Drug War' which opened the door to the violation of many of our civil rights. I consider them to be dangerous to a free society who have, as you point out, turned this nation into a nation of pathetic wimps.

[NeedleCast]

259. +1 for Denis Leary

[dusmcj]

286. thank you. The hallmonitors are onto you now though. /nt

[jeffrey_X]

268. good.

eom

[B Calm]

269. Now this is and without a doubt the biggest crybaby in the world!

[WriteDown]

270. You sure about that?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/093009dnmetsmokingfeud.3ed620b.html

[sabrina 1]

277. Lol, I have to admit, that one definitely beats this OP

Looking at the comments, almost 100% against these two obvious scam artists, I wouldn't want to go before a jury, if I were in their position.

I like some of the comments, suggesting people ought to band together and sue the anti-smoking propagandists for producing these clearly disturbed zealots.

Hopefully the judge will order a psychiatric evaluation. People like this do not belong living among normal human beings. They are either con artists (my bet) or so fragile they need a place where they do not have to mix with other people.

[dusmcj]

284. it's a shame the douchebag industry moved to Cali /nt

[beevul]

289. The wind always blows the same direction there?

Who'd have thunk it...


What.A.Joke.

[DainBramaged]

291. Do the smokers drink soda??? That must make their 'crime' heinous.

:rofl:

[Behind the Aegis]

296. May their lawsuit go up in smoke!