Judge bans a man from smoking in HIS OWN HOME!!

originally posted by: Ensinger23
Fix the damn hole in your basement if you are so worried about smoke permeating. I don't even want to think about the legal implications from something like this. If there is a precedent set where you can sue your neighbors, not even for a little bit of money but a HALF OF A MILLION DOLLARS, imagine what's next. God, this whole legal system is so screwed and I'll bet the judge knows these people or is getting something from this.

READ THIS ARTICLE!

The issue is structural problems with the building where the smoke is originating. The neighbors tried to settle this out of court and have even offered to help pay for repairs. They have said they will drop the suit if the repairs are made.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Bone75

Nor should it matter, you don't get seniority when it comes to rights

True, but I was just pointing out that we don't know if the neighbors house smelled like smoke at the time they chose to move in.

Plus I think it's a little more complicated than you're making it out to be. Should the smokers be able to make their neighbors soundproof their baby's room?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Bone75

Nor should it matter, you don't get seniority when it comes to rights

Exactly.

It's a question of private property rights.

The property rights of the people who have toxins coming into their home.

originally posted by: Bone75
. Should the smokers be able to make their neighbors soundproof their baby's room?

Yes. If that's an issue.

However, we don't know if that's an issue so at this point it's not relevant.

a reply to: Bone75

I can't equate this matter to a babies cry.

We are talking smoke, not a bodily function.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Bone75

I can't equate this matter to a babies cry.

We are talking smoke, not a bodily function.

I beg to differ, sleep deprivation and elevated stress levels can be just as (if not more) harmful than second hand smoke.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

"Should the smokers be able to make their neighbors soundproof their baby's room?"

Yes. If that's an issue.

You sir are a shining example of why people fear anything that even resembles communism.

a reply to: Bone75

That wasn't the point I was making.

My point is that asking some one to get their house up to code and even offering to pay for it so that they don't have smoke coming from your house to theirs is not the same as an issue as a crying baby.
Unless we are talking it is a hole in the building that is causing the noise to be heard more.
They are not asking them to smoke proof the house, just fix an obvious issue.


We can what if till the cows come home, doesn't change the context of what we are talking about.

An automobile pumps out more deadly carcinogens in one minute of idling than a heavy smoker can generate in a week yet nobody cares if a car sits idling or of the massive pollution fouling all the city air. Smokers are targeted and blamed and used an inroad to destroy sovereignty of the home and individual liberty. If smoking is banned so should automobile exhaust be or concerns about health are disingenuous.

a reply to: 0001391

So another failed parallel.

This isn't about them being exposed to out side toxins, they are not stopping this man from going out side and smoking.

It is about damage to a shared wall and what that allows to permeate into their home.

I am sure they would have the same issue if he was running his car inside.

This is not a persecution on smoking, if you read the thread and the other sources provided you can see that clearly.

Also, any source on this claim of one minute idling produces more toxins?

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: DelMarvel

"Should the smokers be able to make their neighbors soundproof their baby's room?"

Yes. If that's an issue.

You sir are a shining example of why people fear anything that even resembles communism.

Communism?!?

We're talking about PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Ah ha, I knew there was a piece of the picture that wasn't presented in the source article. So, it's a curmudgeonly old man who feels that he can do as he pleases and the neighbors be damned. Well, since the structural problem is on his property and he refuses to fix it despite every attempt to do so, then I side with the plaintiff. Still, the idea of neighbors suing neighbors for this type of money is pretty bad and could easily lead to way more lawsuits in the future.

We indeed had a case in Germany, where an old pensionier was indicted for smoking too much in his own appartement.
The lower court agreed with the house owner, but the pensioner went up to the highest court, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH).

The BGH criticized the lower court for not hearing witnesses, nor making an on-site inspection or measuring the toxic pollution. So the case was given back for a review. The house owner tried to get rid of the pensioner quickly via an eviction. The lower court now defeated this eviction, because it would be impossible for the old man to get a comparable appartement for the same price. The court case about the smoking itself still is in progress.

The appartements in this house all have been converted into offices. So the pensioner claims the owner wants to get rid of him for more profit.

Here is a Google translation of an article in Die Zeit.