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

a reply to: Anyafaj

The neighbors, a couple with one child and another on the way, alleged in their lawsuit that they’re being harmed by Gray’s smoke - which permeates their home through a hole in the basement.

Wouldn't it just make more sense to fix the god damn hole in the basement? I mean you have a hole in your basement where the smoke comes through! patch that up and see if it still comes through first. Those children are in harms way of mega earthworms, rats, voles, dino bones, arabs, and sankes.

IF the basement is below ground anyways, I don't see how the smeel from one house can infiltrate into another house through thousands of tons of dirt. Unless the house is 2 feet awayand both have holes in their basement, and that is the only place he smokes.

I think I'm going to go to Walmart, where they always have stalls that do not lock, sit with my pants down and my feet raised in the air so passerbys do not realize I am there, and wait for an employee to walk in on me, butt naked on the pot. I'm sure I can sue them for invading my privacy , since it was their fault for not having a lock on the door. If police can catch drug perps in the similar way, no reason I can't get them. BWAHAHA! Your employee farted and it made me nautious for two days, my Dr. (who is also a friend of mine), said it has officially ruined my chances of becoming the scuba diver I've always dreamt of becoming. I want 8 million dollars. LOL such bs our legal system.

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: Anyafaj
Wouldn't it just make more sense to fix the god damn hole in the basement? I mean you have a hole in your basement where the smoke comes through! patch that up and see if it still comes through first. .

You need to read the rest of the thread including the WaPo article. It's structural problems with the unit where the smoke is coming from including a damaged chimney. The people suing have offered to help pay to fix the problem and have said they will drop the suit if it's fixed.

a reply to: DelMarvel

It still makes zero sense to sue. If this man has lived there for so long, this family would have known about the "smell"before they moved in.

Because smoke leaks through a chimney makes in a nuisance to neighbors? If the chimney was fixed, wouldnt the smoke still come out somehwere? A chimney does have a hole for smoke to escape, so that is the logical place for smoke to escape. That is absurd on all counts.

Examples. A couple chooses to have sex with the blinds open, gets sued for indescent exposure, when it is a natural act of procreating. A family has a few dogs and they go to the bathroom in their backyard, the family doesnt scoop it up and dispose of it, therefore the smell is a nuisance, though is a natural act of fertilization. I ride my bike through a highly congested route to work, filled with buses and cars spewing CO, I feel unsafe with all the CO and am being poisoned slowly, so I sue the state and all the drivers. I would have that right being public access roads? This whole suit is hogwash. It will open up so many cases that all civil liberties will be expunged. You could be sued for farting, you could be sued for having a child with a dirty diaper, you could be sued for watching porn in you home, you could be sued for being naked in your home where there is a window, you could be sued if you grew flowers in your yard that your neighbor was allergic to, you could be sued for wearing a shirt on your property that had foul language on it, you could be sued for leaving your light on if it kept your neighbors awake, you could be sued for washing your car in the driveway if it caused unpleasant drainage water to impede with getting to the mailbox, you could be sued for smoking a cigarette on your front porch if the smoke drifted onto a neighbors property. It is on and on. so if this suit flies, then I will contact my lawyer and try and sue for the most obvious crap, and prove that civil liberties are meticulously being taken away. I may get millions by the end, but i will donate it all to helping those states that don't have legalized marijuana.

A smell alone is not second hand smoke, if it were, I would sue every single garbage company and driver of automobiles for poisoning the air when I choose to ride a bike.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: Anyafaj
Wouldn't it just make more sense to fix the god damn hole in the basement? I mean you have a hole in your basement where the smoke comes through! patch that up and see if it still comes through first. .

You need to read the rest of the thread including the WaPo article. It's structural problems with the unit where the smoke is coming from including a damaged chimney. The people suing have offered to help pay to fix the problem and have said they will drop the suit if it's fixed.

IF this lawsuit goes through (which it won't) then cigarettes will be outright banned from being smoked indoors or outdoors. The tobacco companies will never let that happen, they will personally pay for this man's lawyer fees to make sure it never happens. The family has the right to move, they have no right to impede on another man's civil liberty's. This is the absolute dumbest case that has major potential to put every single person at risk for being sued for the simplest things. And if it does pass. That man has the right to sit in his yard and blow all the smoke towards the neighbors house through a giant plastic tube directed right at their front door/air filter entry way if he chooses so. I do not soke anymore, but still this crap has got to stop.

It's like suing a family for having too many kids because you can here them all times of day. You can smell Mexicans/Indians/Turkish families cooking rancid food that makes you and your family sick, your windows get bird crap on because your neighbors have bird feeders = sue sue sue. I'm going to make out like a bandit.

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: DelMarvel

Because smoke leaks through a chimney makes in a nuisance to neighbors? If the chimney was fixed, wouldnt the smoke still come out somehwere? A chimney does have a hole for smoke to escape, so that is the logical place for smoke to escape. That is absurd on all counts.

How is that absurd? Have you read the WaPo article yet? If the chimney is damaged the smoke could be going through the sides rather than out the hole on the top. If it was fixed the smoke would go out the top as intended and not into the adjoining property or perhaps never seep into the chimney to begin with. Regardless, I don't see how either of us are more qualified to evaluate the situation than the expert(s) that inspected the two units for the judge.

originally posted by: iDope
they have no right to impede on another man's civil liberty's.

The smokers are impeding on their "civil liberties" and property rights.

And the owners of the unit where the smoke is originating don't have much of a leg to stand on in this case as it appears the cause of this problem is that their building is not up to code.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Yes I read the WaPost article. And fact is, you do not have to keep your own house up to code if you arent renting it or selling it. So the owner has a right not to fix the chimney. Do you know how many codes are passed every 5 years or so? everyone would have to do constant maintenance on their property, and their would be constant inspectors on your own home and forcing you to do these or else it would go back to the bank.

Obviously the neighbors house has flaws if it allows their rooms to be filled with smoke if the neighbor is smoking in or outdoors. it shouldnt matter, they should take care of it themsleves on their own house. They would have had to know while walking through it or moving into it, and yet never took care of it.

How is it different If I like to smoke meat outdoors all day long every day becasue that is y business, so there is constant wood fired smoke going into their home? Their "renovated house" is a pile of garbage and it is their fault for buying it if it allows standing smoke to enter their house.

“You’re not going to dictate who comes into my home to do work and how the work is done, and then have the chance to sue me again if you feel the work wasn’t done the way you want it done. This is my home,” Johnson said.

I get a migraine every time I hear aa dog bark. I will go to every neighbor within 2 blocks to have their dog put down on my account, if not, I will sue for every bark I hear. that is ridiculous and you shoul be appalled by your stance.

A judge is no good to anyone live or dead.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: DelMarvel

Because smoke leaks through a chimney makes in a nuisance to neighbors? If the chimney was fixed, wouldnt the smoke still come out somehwere? A chimney does have a hole for smoke to escape, so that is the logical place for smoke to escape. That is absurd on all counts.

How is that absurd? Have you read the WaPo article yet? If the chimney is damaged the smoke could be going through the sides rather than out the hole on the top. If it was fixed the smoke would go out the top as intended and not into the adjoining property or perhaps never seep into the chimney to begin with. Regardless, I don't see how either of us are more qualified to evaluate the situation than the expert(s) that inspected the two units for the judge.

Who do I sue for allergens that get into my house?
How does holes in a chimney directly cause smoke entering into a neighboring house? Their air filtration system is not up to code. As I see it, if smoke "pours" out of the rotting chimney it would only be able to enter through open windows or an airconditioner. And there is no way to have standing smoke from cigarettes alone. If there is only 2 people in this house, there is not enough to suggest that these people smoke constantly to produce this uch smoke in the first place. It is a ploy to make money, that is all.

The quote I insersted previously proves my point. The nighbor could fix it and not sue, but if it doesnt they could still sue.

Is it a helath hazzard to have cigarette butts on the streets? One could easily get the DNA off of them and sue the owner for a health hazard. Do you live near farms? I do. Do you know how much harm cropdusters can harm civilians? their pets? This suit opens the ground for much more to come. How is living next to a busy street any different? Do you know the Carbon Monoxide output and smoke expelled from those vehicles? It is outrageous, much more harm from one or 2 people smoking in their own house that drifts over to a neighbors yard. They chose where to live first of all, it was their mistake from moving in there. I have had new neighbors come and go, some do construction all parts of the day and I don't complain, yet it changes my sleep patterns, puts dust in the air, aybe asbestos, yet I take it on y own responsibility to protect myself like a human, and sue like a slug.

I will play devil's advocate on this one: One time I was doing a walk through on a house I was considering buying. The previous owners were smokers. The walls were freakin' yellow from years and thousands of cigarettes. The smell was so overwhelming throughout the whole house, there was no amount of cleaning product or paint to cover it up. Seriously, the place either needed to go to smokers, or just be bulldozed. It was THAT bad. So I can attest to the disgusting and even harmful nature of second hand smoke to a non-smoker.

If there's a hole in the basement/chimney. Seal that hole. If the smoke is still permeating into the house, then yeah the smokers need to take it outside.

$500,000 in damages....you lost me on that one. The purpose of courts is to rectify the situation, it's not the freakin' lottery!

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

My parents were recently looking at a house to buy, and noticed a strange unpleasant smell. They couldn't figure out what it was. They knew it wasn't animal or food related, but couldn't distinguish it. I went with them on the second viewing and within 30 seconds, I said "it's stale cigarette smoke". The realtor said that it just wasn't possible because 1) the last people living in the home didn't smoke, and 2) they had repainted every wall, replaced all the carpeting (including pads), and removed all drapes and curtains. I insisted that someone living in that house had been a heavy smoker. I also suggested they poke their head up in the attic space where all the insulation was.

The third time my parents went back to look at the house, the realtor admitted that the original owners of the house were heavy smokers, and when she peaked into the attic space, she could definitely smell the stale smoke in the insulation.

My parents passed on the house - they didn't want to deal with replacing all the insulation, and didn't want to risk the smell not going away.

originally posted by: iDope
If there is only 2 people in this house, there is not enough to suggest that these people smoke constantly to produce this uch smoke in the first place.

There are at least five adults living in the house.

You're making multiple statements about the situation and you haven't even read the linked articles.

LINK.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
I
$500,000 in damages....you lost me on that one. The purpose of courts is to rectify the situation, it's not the freakin' lottery!

Once again:

“If they just get these things fixed, the lawsuit will go away. This isn’t about the money,” Nessa Coppinger said.

a reply to: johnwickyou say that to be funny but they had an article here about a year ago were some muslims people sued a guy at a sandwhich shop that they recently moved by because the smell of cooking bacon was offensive to them but the real kicker the guy who owned the shop was muslim

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.

This is fundamentally wrong on every level. One freedom of choice is being removed. Sanctity of one's home and what they wish to do in said home is in jeopardy. At this point they are making it the smokers responsibility for the well-being of their child instead of taking thieir child not him away from the situation.
My solution is as follows: Don't like living near a rapist don't move next to him, don't like living underneath a smoker, don't live underneath a smoker. Simple as that. People need to take personal responsibility and realize you are in charge of your children's exposure. Don't like it well try north Korea out and let us know how it goes.

a reply to: 5thNovember

Have you read the article? The people renting have offered to pay for the repairs (something they shouldn't have to do). The repairs are a result of the building they're living in not being up to code. As tenants they are 100% within their rights.

Negotiations broke down because the home owner feels that if the neighbors pay for it they get a say in how it's fixed. She doesn't want that to happen so she turned down their offer of paying for repairs. Legally she is still required to fix it, and the tenants are well within their right to take the matter to court. The money they're asking for is frivolous, but a judge hasn't awarded it yet either.

You mention personal responsibility but you seem to have forgotten that tenants have rights and protections. They're simply trying to use theirs. Making sure you use your rights is also a form of personal responsibility, one can't simply run from everything.

originally posted by: iDope
IF this lawsuit goes through (which it won't) then cigarettes will be outright banned from being smoked indoors or outdoors. The tobacco companies will never let that happen, they will personally pay for this man's lawyer fees to make sure it never happens. The family has the right to move, they have no right to impede on another man's civil liberty's. This is the absolute dumbest case that has major potential to put every single person at risk for being sued for the simplest things. And if it does pass. That man has the right to sit in his yard and blow all the smoke towards the neighbors house through a giant plastic tube directed right at their front door/air filter entry way if he chooses so. I do not soke anymore, but still this crap has got to stop.

Doesn't the other family have the right to live in a home that's up to code? Their argument is that the chimney isn't up to code (a fact that isn't contested), and that is why the smoke is coming through. Tenants have rights, one of which includes that the place you're renting meets certain structural requirements. This is one of them.

So pretty much every one that thinks this is an outrage and the end of freedom as we know it take in zero consideration for the other persons rights.
Why does one parties rights outweigh the other persons?

Can someone please explain why the smoker has more right to smoke and not fix his home then then other parties right to not have smoke enter their house unwanted?

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: DelMarvel

It still makes zero sense to sue. If this man has lived there for so long, this family would have known about the "smell"

Well to be fair, the article doesn't state how long this guy and his sister have lived in the home or how long they've been smoking in it.

a reply to: Bone75

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

a reply to: 5thNovember

What do you know of these peoples lives to act as if they unlimited choice on where they can live?

Why can't the house that isn't up to code take some personal responsibility and fix their damn house?