|acetaldehyde (1.4+ mg)||arsenic (500+ ng)||benzo(a)pyrene (.1+ ng)|
|cadmium (1,300+ ng)||crotonaldehyde (.2+ µg)||chromium (1,000+ ng)|
|ethylcarbamate 310+ ng)||formaldehyde (1.6+ µg)||hydrazine (14+ ng)|
|lead (8+ µg)||nickel (2,000+ ng)||radioactive polonium (.2+ Pci)|
|acetaldehyde||3,200 ppm||200.0 ppm|
|acrolein||150 ppm||0.5 ppm|
|ammonia||300 ppm||150.0 ppm|
|carbon monoxide||42,000 ppm||100.0 ppm|
|formaldehyde||30 ppm||5.0 ppm|
|hydrogen cyanide||1,600 ppm||10.0 ppm|
|hydrogen sulfide||40 ppm||20.0 ppm|
|methyl chloride||1,200 ppm||100.0 ppm|
|nitrogen dioxide||250 ppm||5.0 ppm|
"The danger cigarettes . . . pose to health is, among others, a danger to life itself . . . a danger inherent in the normal use of the product, not one merely associated with its abuse or dependent on intervening fortuitous events. It threatens a substantial body of the population, not merely a peculiarly susceptible fringe group."
|The "warranty of habitability" includes a wide range of tenant rights, e.g., personal safety and security, see, e.g.,
|"Warranty of habitability. In most states, either by statute or case law, every landlord is held to impliedly warrant that the residential premises rented are fit for human habitation (i.e. free of violations of building and sanitary codes) at the time of the inception of the tenancy, and will continue as such during the term. Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway et al., 363 Mass. 184, 293 N.E.2d 831; Hinson v. Delis, 26 Cal.App.3d 62, 102 Cal.Rptr. 661; Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Law, § 2.104."
A related term is "Habitable repair. A covenant by a lessee to 'put the premises into habitable repair' binds him to put them into such a state that they may be occupied, not only with safety, but with reasonable comfort, for the purposes for which they are taken."
"Sanitary. That which pertains to health, with especial reference to cleanliness and freedom from infective and deleterious influences." (Black's Law Dict, 5th ed, p 1204)
"Trespass. An unlawful interference with one's person, property, or rights." (Black's Law Dict, 6th ed, pp, 1502-3).
And see law reviews by
|In law, "one who presumes to act, even though gratuitiously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully, if he acts at all." Glanzer v Shepard, 233 NY 236, 239; 135 NE 275, 276 (1922).
"A tortfeasor has a duty to assist his victim. The initial injury creates a duty of aid and the breach of the duty is an independent tort. See Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 322, Comment c (1965)." Taylor v Meirick, 712 F2d 1112, 1117 (CA 7, 1983).
Overview of Your Review and Action Process
(a) Examine your lease or condominium agreement.
(b) Photocopy it for a working copy, so you can mark on it, highlighting key terms
(c) Find the terms pertaining to fresh and pure air, for example, words such as "safe," "comfort," "habilitability," or whatever terms are included.
(d) Highhght for easy reference, every clause that pertains to fresh and pure air, and the section on notifying management.
(e) Following its instructions, prepare a "violation notice", with a checklist format, for the offenses using the pertinent sections of your lease. Record any pertinent dates, tenant names, and apartment numbers, or guests who performed the offense (smoking violating the various clauses). If you took pictures, include a copy.
(f) Find the clause, or state or local law (you may need the aid of the local library for this), the time limit in which the landlord is to solve the problem. It may be called a "remedy period" for example. Cite in your "violation notice" the remedy period
(g) Specify whatever the documents say about landlord response, perhaps, notifying you as what remedy planned to be used.
(h) Photocopy the "violation notice", keeping a copy for your self, and one for your support group, if you have one.
(i) Send the "violation notice" with a cover letter including the "notification of negligence." If need be, of course, alter the words to be most appropriate for your situation.
Ignorantia eorum quć quis scire tenetur non excusat; ignorance of those things which one is bound to know excuses not.
Ignorantia juris quod quisque tenetur scire, neminem excusat; ignorance of the [or a] law, which every one is bound to know, excuses no man.
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat; ignorance of law excuses no one.
Ignorantia juris non excusat; ignorance of the law excuses not.
Reason: Ignorare legis est lata culpa; to be ignorant of the law is gross neglect—five Latin sayings to the same effect, it is such a well established concept.
|"The proof of the pattern or practice [of willingness to allow smoking notwitstanding all the above material] supports an inference that any particular decision, during the period in which the policy was in force, was made in pursuit of that policy." Teamsters v U.S., 431 US 324, 362; 97 S Ct 1843, 1868; 52 L Ed 2d 396, 431 (1977).
Violations of criminal law can indeed result in damage to private citizens. Ware-Kramer Tobacco Co v American Tobacco Co, 180 F 160 (ED NC, 1910).
Litigants can show as part of the evidence in his/her own case, the guilt of others linked to the current defendant, in showing a pattern. Locker v American Tobacco Co, 194 F 232 (1912).
|The bottom line is that what is at issue is an "ultrahazardous activity" as that term is defined in professional material. See an analysis of the concept by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Laird v Nelms, 406 US 797; 92 S Ct 1899; 32 L Ed 2d 499 (1972). There, sonic booms and dynamite blasting are discussed in context of "ultrahazardous activity." Each produces a spreading effect. Cigarettes do that via fires and via their toxic chemicals, superheated, moving at high speed. In contrast to sonic booms and dynamite blasting, cigarettes kill 37,000,000 in the U.S. alone, and constitute a "holocaust." This is the most "ultrahazardous activity" on earth.|
|President George W. Bush||U.S. Senator _______||U.S. Representative __||Governor ___||State Senator __||State Representative __|
|1600 Pennsylvania Avenue||Senate Office Building||House Office Building||State Capitol||State Capitol||State Capitol|
|Washington DC 20500||Washington DC 20510||Washington DC 20515||City State Zip||City State Zip||City State Zip|
|The court said, "In Ohio, a covenant of quiet enjoyment is implied into every lease
contract for realty and protects the tenant's right to a peaceful and undisturbed
enjoyment of his leasehold. Glyco v Schultz (1972), 35 Ohio Misc 25, 33; 62 OO2d
59; 289 NE2d 919, 925." Check the law in your area, it is undoubtedly likewise.
"Neighbors Settle Smoking Dispute," The Record (Bergen County, NJ), March 2, 1995, C12; "2 Smokers Are Sued by Neighbors in Apartment Above Them," N Y Times, April 28, 1994, B6; "US Couple Sue Downstairs Neighbours for Smoking, The Times, April 29, 1994; Gold, J., "Judge Rejects Bid to Stop Neighbors Smoking," The Record (Bergen County, NJ) S06; Hanley, R., "Judge Turns Down Couple in Quest of Anti-Smoking Order Against Their Neighbors," N Y Times, April 29, 1994, B5; "Couple Whose Neighbors Smoke Sent to Co-op Board," Orlando Sentinel, April 30, 1994, A18; "Judge: Neighbors' Smoking Dispute Must be Resolved by Board," The Legal Intelligencer, May 2, 1994, 8; "Complex Orders Repairs in Fight Over Smoking," The Record (Bergen County, NJ), May 13, 1994, A27; "Truce Is Reached in a Co-op Clash Over Smoking," May 13, 1994, B4; Boronson, W., "Love Thy Neighbor: Different Ways to Cope with the Nuisance Next Door," The Record (Bergen County, NJ), May 15, 1994, R1; and "Upstairs, Up in Smoke," National Law Journal, May 23, 1994, A23. Snow v Gilbert, Middlesex Cty. (MA) Superior Ct., Docket No. MICV94-07373 (1994). When a landlord violated an earlier agreement not to rent the units below hers to smokers, a tenant won a temporary injunction against her landlord to prevent him from renting the units to smokers, at least until she can relocate. The smoke from those units seeped into the plaintiff's apartment, causing a severe reaction, since she suffers from multiple chemical sensitivity, pulmonary fibrosis and CREST, a form of scleroderma. Note that the relocating aspect is wrongful, people are entitled to their legal rights WHERE THEY ARE, State of Missouri ex rel Gaines v Canada, 305 US 337; 59 S Ct 232; 83 L Ed 208 (1938); and compare Alfred W. Blumrosen, Donald M. Ackerman, Julie Klingerman, Peter VanSchaick, and Kevin D. Sheehy, "Injunctions Against Occupational Hazards: The Right to Work Under Safe Conditions," 64 California Law Review (#3) 702-731 (May 1976) (the right to safety is where you are, not elsewhere).
|See also Prisoner Housing Cases|
Benefit of Citing RICO In Your Case
RICO is the anti-organized crime law that the 22 September 1999 Department of Justice case cited to recover damages from tobacco companies. RICO covers all defined racketeering acts, generally, extortion, mail fraud, falsification of documents, killings, etc. The benefit to the crime victim, the litigant, you, is that RICO provides for TRIPLE damages, pursuant to 18 USC § 1964.(c). In legal terms, this constitutes the value of the underlying claim, Basic Food Industries, Inc v Grant, 107 Mich App 685, 691; 310 NW2d 26, 29 (1981).
RICO is comparable to, and likely additional to, state law, for example, the Michigan trebling law, MCL § 600.2907, MSA § 27A.2907, as the harm caused is malicious. A pertinent Michigan trebling case is Pauley v Hall, 124 Mich App 255; 335 NW2d 197 (1983). Check your state for your pertinent laws and cases.
David B. Ezra, "Get Your Ashes out of my Living Room!—Controlling Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Unit Residential Housing," 54 Rutgers Law Review (#1) (Fall 2001)
Dr. Joyce Starr, Secondhand Smoke Crimes: When Neighbors Poison You (2009) ("explodes the myth that a chain-smoker’s home is his/her castle and that smoker rights prevail in buildings where victims cannot avoid and/or defend themselves against the smoke.")
Safe Homes Site of Minn.
Smoke Free Organization Site
Email@TCPG, Attn: Author
Copyright © 1999 The Crime Prevention Group
Copyright © 1999 The Crime Prevention Group