Comments on: “Suing the Smoker Next Door”

By: Krakken

Krakken — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:12:07 +0000

I guess the Selbins won? Good! If only there was a law to forcibly, and I mean forcibly, punish any smoker who doesn’t have the courtesy of taking their habit outside and far from everyone else (who doesn’t smoke).

No love, only contempt for smokers – their are millions that struggle to have enough money for food, these idiots invest theirs in carcinogen sticks.

Like their crutches, they too should be snuffed out

By: z0l0ft

z0l0ft — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:01:09 +0000

A chain smoker named ‘Huff?’

By: TC

TC — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:30:56 +0000

“http://www.davehitt.com/facts/”

Or find some actual factual information like Penn and Teller did as well!

By: billb

billb — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:23:42 +0000

Having just seen the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on second-hand smoke (via Netflix), I’ve had a question on this issue on my mind: Suppose we for the moment decide that there’s no harm to the neighbors from the toxins in the smoke, that still leaves the smell. How strong does the smell have to be before the neighbor commits a tort?

By: nevins

nevins — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:01:55 +0000

The lingering smell of smoke might be distasteful, but it is probably not a good surrogate for assuming the presence of harmful substances in any meaninful concentration. The selbins too are probably guilty of creating nuisance smells in the public space from time to time. Unless they wish to claim they never fart, cook with any spice stronger than parsley; oh, and there’s also the smell of urine from the stroller, is it really dog pee or kid pee?

If they want to argue exposure to toxins, then they simply need to obtain the data. If it is nothing more than the same smell of stale cigarettes that predated their moving in then tough for them.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:47:42 +0000

Unless she hermetically seals her apartment and keeps it under negative pressure some smoke molecules will enter the common area (see the second law of thermodynamics). Since smoking has not been outlawed in apartment buildings the Selbins have no case (see Professor Bainbridge’s commentary). Of course, if the Selbins are so sensitive to smoke they can always wear an oxygen mask when they leave their apartment. That would have the added benefit of protecting them from smokers in the street. How else could they be protected from all second hand smoke?

By: DAV

DAV — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:21:07 +0000

Gee. When they checked out the apartment wasn’t the smoke evident then? This wasn’t a problem where they lived before moving in? They didn’t ask if there were smokers in the building? The Selbins are lawyers but the thought never entered their minds?

Selbin: “This isn’t about her stopping smoking.” Then what exactly is the remedy sought?

“Selbin accuses Ms. Huff of encouraging Bobo the Chihuahua to urinate outside their door and on Charlie’s stroller while it is parked in the hallway.”

That’s bizarre. They leave stuff, presumably (hopefully) sans child, cluttering the hallway then have the nerve to complain about the actions of other neighbors? Why does a 4-year old need a stroller anyway?

Sheeesh!

By: Ashley Burr

Ashley Burr — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:51:40 +0000

That’s disgusting, classless and totally unethical…typical words to describe a lawyer, I know. Smoking is gross too though, although hardly deserving of this type of personal attack.

By: Albatross

Albatross — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:39:36 +0000

If you think the chainsmoker had it coming, wait until they come after fireplaces and barbeque pits. Man, talk about smoking up the neighborhood.

By: LisaMarie

LisaMarie — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:13:58 +0000

As unlovely as the plaintiffs might be, they have a point. Want to smoke on your own property, knock yourself out. But I don’t see why there should be any right to let smoke drift onto someone else’s property; the common hallway does not belong to her, and in a sense, she’s polluting it.