Cigarettes contain and emit toxic chemicals with "ultrahazardous" nature and impact, and have a record of containing a dangerous poisonous additive, coumarin used for rat poison. Wherefore, by definition, cigarette emissions are illegal everywhere, including on-the-job. The pertinent term is "Toxic Tobacco Smoke," or "TTS."

TTS violates the legal "right to fresh and pure air" that you, and all people, have. That is ancient law.

          And as a third protective law against killing people, in the workplace, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 USC § 651 - § 678 forbids hazards. Rules such as 29 CFR § 1910.1000 provide specific examples of hazards such as carbon monoxide (limit of 50 parts per million). An employer has a duty to prevent and suppress hazardous conduct by employees. National Realty and Construction Co, Inc v Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 160 US App DC 133, 489 F2d 1257, 1266, n 36 (CA DC, 1973).

          Employer compliance is mandatory, not optional. Relative to the TTS hazard, indeed all hazards, an employer must comply with the "duty to prevent and suppress" that hazard in particular, as unlike perhaps other allged hazards, "the detrimental effects of cigarette smoking on health are beyond controversy." Larus and Brother Co v Federal Communications Commission, 447 F2d 876, 880 (CA 4, 1971).

          In fact, the TTS hazard is so obvious that it is negligence for the employer to even hire smokers. Nonsmoker Donna Shimp had won a TTS similar case years before, following already existing precedents.

Smokers themselves have long sued over tobacco hazards. Tobacco companies have a long record of being involved in litigation over their practices.

In Michigan, cigarettes are illegal by law, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216 (1909). In fact, in 1914, shortly after the law was passed, Henry Ford wrote a book, The Little White Slaver, identifying adverse effects of smoking.

TTS constitutes garbage, matter being disposed of, and pursuant to a long line of Michigan case law, constitutes a nuisance per se.

Employee Leonard A. Perkins asked his employer to in essence obey the law (and anti-TTS precedents) to provide a safe job site, i.e., the "right to fresh and pure air," but the employer refused. The brazenness of Ford's blatant defiance of federal law and Michigan law was so ultra egregious that Mr. Perkins did not even need a lawyer. The tobacco hazard is obvious, notorious, indeed, documented for centuries! Tobacco smoke is dangerous because its chemical ingredients exceed legal safety limits! (It'd be safe if the quantities were under the limits!) So of course a judge would rule to compel the employer to obey the rule of law!

Amazingly, this brazen violater was the Ford Motor Company. It had drastically deteriorated since Henry Ford's time, with his respect on this subject for safety and keeping health care costs low. Henry Ford had refused to hire smokers -- had followed Thomas Edison's example. But Ford Company management after Henry Ford's death had deteriorated, deteriorated to not only allowing smokers on the roles, but allowing smoking to such an extreme as to endanger nonsmokers!

Incidentaly, this deterioration also means much higher costs including for health care, as smokers have more accidents and higher sickness rate. Thus vehicle costs go up, causing effects including out-sourcing pressures.

So Perkins sued and obtained a court order requiring such respect for safety. Though cigarette hazards have been long known (for example, Iowa and Tennessee banned cigarettes in 1897 and Michigan did so in 1909), Perkins was another pioneer in the modern era. Below is the text of the injunction he won.



vs.                                                                                                    Case No. 86-633018 CZ

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.                                              Hon. Helene N. White

Leonard A. Perkins
In Pro Per

Kermit G. Bailer (P 24737)
Attorney for Defendants
Ford Motor Company
The American Rd., Room 1090
P. O. Box 1899
Dearborn, MI 48121-1899
(313) 322-5030


        At a session of the above-named Court held in
        the Lafayette Building, Detroit, Wayne County,
        Michigan, on NOV 25 1986
        PRESENT: Honorable HELENE N. WHITE

Upon reading and filing the Complaint and after oral argument of the parties, Plaintiff appearing on his own behalf and defendant Ford Motor Company appearing through its attorney, Kermit G. Bailer,

IT IS ORDERED that, Defendant Ford shall immediately post "No Smoking" signs in conformity with the attached stipulation of the parties hereto until such time as the case is dismissed or until a trial of the case on its merits, including Plaintiff's prayer for a permanent injunction, is concidered and judgment entered.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for a Preliminary Injunction be GRANTED as per the attached stipulation, until a trial of the issues or until further order of the Court.

/s/ Helene N. White
Hon. Helene N. White
Circuit Court Judge

Approved as to Form and Substance:

/s/Leonard A. Perkins
Leonard A. Perkins

Kermit G. Bailer
Ford Motor Company, By Its Attorney
Kermit G. Bailer

Dated: November 24, 1986

           The decision follows that of Shimp v New Jersey Bell Telephone Co, 145 N J Super 516; 368 A2d 408 (1976).

           Soon another case followed hers, also requesting a court order directing compliance with the safety laws. That case was in Missouri and entitled Paul Smith v Western Electric Co, 643 SW2d 10 (Mo App, 1982).

           In Michigan, about three months earlier than the herein-cited Perkins case, there had just been the case of Lauren Hall v Veterans Administration, EEOC Case No. 054-086-X0097 (Detroit, 5 Sep 1986).

Later came the case of Phillip Keller v City of Grand Rapids (WD Mich, Thursday, 1 July 1999) (jury verdict $420,878, re discipline and harassment in reprisal against his whistleblowing about not enforcing Michigan's Clean Air Act prohibiting smoking in public buildings)

Thereafter the case of Victoria Gallegos v Elite Model Management (NY Jury, 14 May 2003; 1 Misc 3d 200; 768 NYS 2d 134; 2003 NY LEXIS 1009, 13 Aug 2003; 2004 NY Misc LEXIS 1009 (6 Jan 2004)), obtained a jury verdict of $5.27 million re employer retaliation against employee, firing her, in retaliation against her freedom of expression on behalf of the right to pure air. Precedents show the right has been well-established for centuries, so employer had no acceptable excuse.

Note Ford executives' continuing contempt for their employees, for safety and for the rule of law, as shown by Ford workers having to continue to protest Ford's smoky jobsite still some 23 years later than Perkins' 1986 win, cited in the article by Norb Franz, "Smoking on the line" (Macomb Daily) 20 December 2009, pages 1A and24A. Ford executives know tobacco dangerousness, the Michigan law, the federal law, the centuries of precedents, the data on tobacco effects and costs, the data on smoking as a mental disorder, the data that it is negligence to even be hiring smokers, etc., etc., yet they continue to allow smoking! meaning, the spewing of dangerous toxic chemicals with their natural and probable consequences to kill.

Cigarette Effects Report, 1889
Cigarette Analysis - 1914
Cigarettes Cause Cancer,
Data From 1925
Cigarettes Kill Nonsmokers
Legal Term Definitions
Michigan Law
Common Law
International Law

"Are You Missing $omething?,"
26 Smoke Signals 4 (Oct 1980)

Discusses cigarette costs to society, following my practice of
consolidating in one narrative, data from a multiplicity of sources,
refuting the then notion that cigarettes are a cost plus to society

"Smoking as hazardous conduct,"
86 N Y St J Med 493 (September 1986)

Discusses workplace smoking as already illegal pursuant to OSHA's 29 CFR § 1910.1000 emissions limits, which cigarettes regularly exceed

"[Indoor Air Quality] IAQ Already Regulated,"
3 Indoor Air Rev 3 (April 1993)

Discusses workplace smoking as already illegal pursuant to OSHA's 29 CFR § 1910.1000 emissions limits, which cigarettes regularly exceed

"Alternative Models for Controlling Smoking Among Adolescents,"
87 Am J Pub Health 869-870 (May 1997)

Discusses preventing smoking among children
by doing for them as for all other people:
a law providing that only safe products
be manufactured, given away, and sold

Text of A Letter By This Author to The Secretary of Labor Asking Her To Have The Federal Job Safety Agency (OSHA) Enforce 29 CFR § 1910.1000 As Part of the "War on Drugs" Inasmuch As It Does No Enforcement Of The Rule In Its Own Right

Discussion Group:
More Participants Welcome

This site is sponsored as a public service by
The Crime Prevention Group


Copyright © 1999 Leroy J. Pletten