Tobacco Control Journal
2000;9:201-205 (Summer)
Smoke knows no boundaries: legal
strategies for environmental tobacco
smoke incursions into the home within
multi-unit residential dwellings
Robert L Kline
Tobacco Control Resource
Center, Northeastern
University School of Law,
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Correspondence to:
Robert L. Kline, JD,
Tobacco Control Resource Center,
Northeastern University
School of Law,
400 Huntington Avenue,
117 Cushing Hall, Boston,
MA 02115, USA
Rkline@lynx.neu.edu
• Abstract
OBJECTIVE[---]To describe legal
theories that non-smoking residents of multiple occupancy buildings may employ
when affected by environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) from neighbouring units.
DESIGN[---]Legal research was
conducted in several US states. Research was performed among statutes and
regulations. State health regulations were examined as well as common law
claims of nuisance, warranties of habitability, and the right of quiet
enjoyment.
RESULTS[---]Through the use of state
regulations, such as a sanitary code, several states provide general language
for protecting the health of residents in multi-unit buildings. State law also
supports more traditional claims of nuisance, warranties of habitability, and
the right of quiet enjoyment.
CONCLUSIONS[---]The use of state
regulations has the potential to provide an effective, existing vehicle for
resolution of ETS incursion problems. The general health protection language of
the regulations, in conjunction with the latest evidence of the harmful effects
of ETS, gives state agencies authority to regulate environmental tobacco smoke
incursions among apartments in multi-unit dwellings. Where state regulations
are not available, other common law legal remedies may be available. (Tobacco
Control 2000;9:201-205)
Keywords: environmental tobacco
smoke; legal strategies; multiple occupancy dwellings
Introduction
This article examines regulatory and
common law legal theories available to address the problem of environmental
tobacco smoke (ETS) incursion into the homes of non-smoking residents of
multi-unit dwellings. Non-smoking residents may use existing state regulations,
such as sanitary codes, as a mechanism for legal action to prevent or limit
incursion of ETS into non-smokers' apartments or condominiums in multiple
occupancy residential buildings. The advantage of this strategy is that it
employs an administrative system for correction of health violations that is
already in place and accepted. No legislative action is necessary; no new legal
theory need be created. It merely involves an application of existing law and
scientific knowledge to specific facts by a Board of Health (the Board). Where
the Board decision is appealed to a local court, the court may choose to defer
to the administrative body's judgment in its area of expertise. Rather than a
contentious issue of property rights where a jury must determine the
appropriate interpretation of complex scientific evidence, the posture of the
case will be an administrative law determination by a judge regarding the
authority of the Board of Health. The burden of proof will be on the landlord
to show that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously, not on an individual
ETS victim to prove either the dangers of ETS or the sufficiency of exposure to
implicate these dangers.
The advantage of maintaining the
case in this posture is that the parties will not be neighbour v. neighbour but
instead will be the landlord v. the Board. This eliminates the issue of the
smoker's right to privacy in the home and focuses on the landlord providing the
non-smoking tenant with safe living conditions. The landlord, as owner and
economically responsible party, is the best party to correct physical defects
in the building that allow for ETS incursion. This approach is proactive and
relies on scientific expertise of a government agency rather than a litigation
model that relies on legal expertise and a confrontation between private
parties.
Health effects of ETS
Numerous health agencies and
scientific studies have determined that ETS imposes serious health risks on
non-smokers. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health determined that ETS
"can cause allergies, cancer, including lung cancer; and respiratory
disease, especially in children whose parents smoke and in people who already
have lung problems. It can aggravate heart disease and irritate the eyes, nose,
throat and airways."1
ETS causes the death of an estimated
3000 non-smokers per year from lung cancer. ETS also causes the death of
approximately 50 000 people per year due to ETS related heart disease.2 ETS has
been identified as a possible causal factor in sudden infant death syndrome
(SIDS), which is the leading cause of death in infants between 1 month and 1
year old.3
ETS also causes non-fatal but
serious health risks to those exposed to it. ETS exposure may cause immediate
health consequences including alterations in blood chemistry, effects on blood
vessels and the heart muscle, and the ability of the heart to respond to the
stress of reduced oxygen delivery.2 Short term exposure to ETS increases the
carbon monoxide in the blood, reduces the ability of the heart muscle to
convert oxygen into adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and increases the likelihood
of the formation of blood clots.2 4
Although most studies focus on the
effects of ETS on individuals who live with smokers, the qualitative nature of
the studies are transferable to ETS incursion cases because the non-smoking
tenant is still exposed to the toxic substances present in ETS. A lesser degree
of exposure may exist but some fraction of the health effects and increase in
risk still remains.5 Scientists have not determined any safe threshold level of
ETS. Even very low concentrations of ETS will affect children under 2 years old
and those with respiratory handicaps such as asthma. Courts have recognized
that exposure to ETS is sufficiently harmful to give rise to a cause of
action.6 7
The scientific evidence gathering
procedure can be relatively simple. The Board of Health inspector or an
environmental health specialist would place an active monitor in the affected
space to measure nicotine as a gas. Assuming that the tenant is a non-smoker, a
positive reading for nicotine would provide good evidence to allow an inference
that other gases and particulate matter of ETS exist as well.
ETS incursion as a violation of state health and
safety codes
Each state in the USA has some
regulatory mechanism to protect the health of its citizens living in multi-unit
dwellings. The regulation may take the form of a sanitary code, a housing code,
a landlord tenant regulation, or a municipal code. Each approach tends to set
forth the standards by which some public health body may take action in the
event of a violation, or grants rights to a resident whose health may be
affected by his neighbours' actions.
These regulations usually list
specific examples of code violations, although the presence of ETS as a
violation is unlikely. An important tool for the success of this approach is
the presence, at the end of this list, of a "catch-all" clause using
broad language of "other violations" as determined by the regulatory
agency.8 Regulation, case law or experience will determine the standard to be
applied by a health inspector to such non-enumerated conditions (for example,
the non-enumerated condition may have to "endanger health and safety/well
being of an occupant" to be included as a health threat).8
The literature regarding ETS exposure must support the specific complaints by non-smoking tenants in order to meet the standards necessary under the code. A Board determination that a particular health threat exists in a particular situation would merely be applying well-accepted scientific conclusions by widely acknowledged experts using the latest scientific findings. If a violation is found, the regulatory body's procedure or duty under these circumstances may include writing a fine, ordering repairs, or reporting the infraction to some other agency. Repairs might require caulking where ETS incursions occur, installing plastic smoke blockers behind electrical outlets, and correcting problems with the ventilation systems. The landlord may also enforce lease provisions against the smoker to prevent sanitary code violations.9
The rights of the landlord are often
set out under the regulatory scheme. There are several issues a regulatory body
may have to confront. How long does the landlord have to make repairs? Is there
a penalty to the landlord for failure to repair? May the regulatory agency make
a repair and charge the landlord for the cost? Some regulations use penalties
as an economic incentive for the landlord (that is, each day the violation
exists is considered a new violation).
Most administrative regulations will
provide an appeals process for the landlord.10 The evidentiary standards and
the legal standard of review applied during the appeal process will vary by
state. The appellate body may also have a process for acceptance of general
scientific data, such as ETS research. If the internal regulatory appeal
process finds against the landlord, but the landlord still does not cooperate,
the regulatory body may need to bring the landlord to court. The court will, in
most cases, defer to the agency's expertise.
Specific states approach this
problem in similar but distinct fashions. In Massachusetts the state sanitary
code specifically sets forth that the Board inspectors are empowered to "determine
if any . . .other conditions, are conditions which may endanger or materially
impair the health or safety, and well-being of an occupant or the
public."11 The drafters of the code anticipated that non-enumerated
violations would exist and be subject to sanction.12 ETS is not specifically
included, but the code states that the listed conditions "are specifically
not intended as an exhaustive enumeration of such conditions."8 11
Connecticut's code regulating
landlord-tenant relations empowers the municipal department of health to
determine whether ventilation or other sanitary conditions pose a threat to
health, and if so to order the landlord to correct the unsanitary condition.13
In Delaware a landlord must maintain a rental unit in such condition so that it
does not endanger the health, welfare or safety of the tenants.14 The statute
permits local boards of health to determine whether a dwelling has become unfit
as a living place and a cause of nuisance or sickness to the occupants.15 If so
the local board of health may direct the owner to "cleanse" the
premises.15 Colorado's Department of Public Health and Environment has been
granted the power and the duty "to establish and enforce standards for
exposure to environmental conditions, . . .that may be necessary for the
protection of public health.16 Furthermore, Colorado county and district health
departments are given the power and duty to "make any necessary sanitary
and health investigations and inspections . . .as to any matters affecting public
health within the jurisdiction."17 States that do not contain such general
provisions in the state statutes may leave sanitary code issues to municipal
governments.
In summary, the state sanitary code
approach offers several advantages. An existing body of law provides a
framework for applying health science to a societal problem. An administrative
body (either the local board of health or the state department of public
health) will have determined the dangers of ETS making it less likely that a
lengthy and costly court battle need be waged to "prove" well
accepted science. The posture of the case will be a local health enforcement
agency seeking to uphold the health and safety versus a landlord who, with some
repairs, could resolve the problem. It thus removes the politically contentious
issue of smokers' "rights" in their residences. Procedurally the
burden will be on the landlord to show the Board acted unreasonably, and not on
the Board to justify the exact details of ETS science. Finally, the landlord is
the economically responsible party who is most able to act to correct the ETS
incursion as opposed to a more transient smoking tenant.
Other legal courses of action
There are a variety of legal courses
of action that tenants and owners of condominiums can use to try and stop a
neighbour's drifting tobacco smoke from entering their home. These legal rights
require that the adversely affected parties go to court to enforce their
rights.
NUISANCE
A private nuisance is a
non-trespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment
of land. The invasion must be intentional and unreasonable, and must consist of
an act or the failure to act under circumstances where there is a duty to take
positive action to prevent or abate the interference. The invasion also must
cause significant harm.18
To be intentional, an invasion must
be carried out by an actor who purposefully causes the invasion, and knows, or
should have known, that the invasion is resulting from the actor's conduct.19
It need not be ill inspired. Smoking a cigarette with knowledge that the smoke
from the cigarette is substantially certain to drift into a neighbouring
dwelling is, therefore, intentionally invading another's interest in land. An
initial complaint to the smoking neighbour should be enough to put him on
notice.
The issue then becomes whether the
invasion is unreasonable. To be unreasonable, courts employ a balancing test to
determine whether the seriousness of the harm outweighs the usefulness of the
actor's conduct. Factors include: "(a) The extent of the harm involved;
(b) the character of the harm involved; (c) the social value that the law
attaches to the type of use or enjoyment invaded; (d) the suitability of the
particular use or enjoyment invaded to the character of the locality; and (e)
the burden on the person harmed of avoiding the harm."20
Cigarette smoke that drifts from one
apartment to another and that causes non-smoking apartment residents serious
discomfort and impairs their health may be an actionable nuisance. This is easy
to understand if we apply the gravity of harm versus utility of conduct test to
a typical ETS situation.
First, the harm caused by the
tobacco smoke drifting from one apartment or condominium to another must be
substantial and it must be significant enough to affect an ordinary person.
Watery eyes by themselves probably will not make a case, nor will the drifting
smoke from just a few cigarettes per day. But, if the non-smokers felt sick, or
they were forced out of their home on occasion, and their house smelled, a
court would be more likely to take action. It is important to remember,
however, that exposure to ETS is dangerous to people's health, especially
children's health. A court should take this fact into consideration given the
appropriate documentation.
Second, the character of the harm
involved is an important prong in determining the seriousness of drifting smoke
relative to nuisance. Secondhand tobacco smoke is poisonous, irritating and,
with prolonged exposure, can be deadly, particularly for young children or for
those suffering from respiratory ailments. Smoke in apartment buildings travels
through ventilation systems, through common areas, through windows and through
walls. The burden on a tenant suffering from ETS to avoid drifting smoke is
quite high.
The court must balance the gravity
of the harm with the utility or usefulness of the conduct of the other
person.21 The social value of the conduct, in this case smoking, is an
important consideration in evaluating utility. It is difficult to assign any
particular social value to smoking cigarettes, pipes, or cigars, aside from the
simple right to use one's property as one wishes. Nor can smoking be said to be
particularly suitable to its locality if it is interfering with the rights and
health of others. A smoker can prevent or avoid an invasion of smoke. The
smoker may merely stop or cut down on smoking, or smoke in an area where the
smoke is confined or does not bother those affected. Since the act of smoking
in one's own home possesses little social value, the argument that it is
difficult to quit has little merit in the gravity of harm versus utility of
conduct equation.22 Indeed, all the smoker needs to do is smoke outside or in a
room from which air does not enter the non-smoker's apartment.
COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
The right of quiet enjoyment
addresses the tenant's right to freedom from serious intrusions with his
tenancy "such as acts or omissions that impair the character and value of
the leased premises".23 Landlords may be held responsible for the actions
of third parties beyond their control.24
Clauses in the standard lease give
the landlord the right to curb the smoking tenant's violations related to ETS
incursions. The provisions relate to "Disturbance, Illegal Use"25 and
"Other Regulations".26 A landlord's failure to enforce the provisions
gives the non-smoking tenant the right to sue the landlord for violation of the
right to quiet enjoyment.27
The Massachusetts Housing Court
recently found that ETS incursion from one rental unit to another constitutes a
breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.28 Tenants rented a residential
apartment above a restaurant and bar. The tenants made an uncontested assertion
that levels of ETS incursion from the bar were significant. The tenants
withheld rent for three months and the landlord began eviction proceedings. The
tenants asserted as a defence that the landlord had violated their right of
quiet enjoyment of the premises. The court held for the tenants that the
landlord had breached the warranty of habitability, the statutory right of
quiet enjoyment, and the consumer protection statute. The court awarded damages
and ordered correction of the ETS incursion.29
WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
All states have an implied warranty
of habitability for rental.30 The warranty dictates that a landlord must
provide residential rental premises fit for human occupation[---]that there are
no latent or patent defects in the facilities[---]from the inception of the
rental agreement through its entire term.31
The obligation of the landlord to
abide by the warranty applies even when he or she is not at fault or has had no
reasonable opportunity to make repairs. In essence, "the landlord's
liability without fault is merely an economic burden; the tenant living in an
uninhabitable building suffers a loss of shelter, a necessity."32 In
effect, the landlord may be held liable even as an innocent party; the warranty
of habitability is not designed to penalise the landlord for misbehaviour, nor
is it based on notions of moral sanction or deterrence. Likewise, when a
problem exists, the landlord has an obligation to fix it immediately and
completely, to bring it into compliance with the state sanitary code.
As discussed in the section
regarding the state sanitary code, there is sufficient scientific evidence to
justify holding that ETS endangers or materially impairs the health of the
residents. Once a health inspector makes a determination that ETS incursion has
occurred the non-smoking tenant would be able to use that as evidence of a
material breach of the lease and of the warranty of habitability. The burden
would be on the landlord to dispute the health inspector's findings.
Under a theory of warranty of
habitability the court will determine whether a material breach of the lease
has occurred by applying a set of factors to the circumstances of each case.33
The non-inclusive list of factors cited by the court include: "(a) the
seriousness of the claimed defects and their effects on the dwelling's
habitability; (b) the length of time the defects persist; (c) whether the
landlord or his agent received written or oral notice of the defects; (d) the
possibility that the residence could be made habitable within a reasonable
time; and (e) whether the defects resulted from abnormal conduct or use by the
tenant."34
Applying these factors to the
typical ETS incursion problem, the more serious the incursion the more likely
the premises would not be habitable. The defect would probably continue to
exist even after notice, the landlord should be put on notice early in the
process, and repairs should be attempted. The tenant would be a non-smoker and
therefore not likely to have contributed to the problem.
A report from a health inspector on
the presence and dangers of ETS in the dwelling would help to show the landlord
violated the habitability standards. The court, however, would perform its own
factual review of the evidence and would determine "the seriousness"
of the health threat. This might lead to a protracted evidentiary battle over
ETS science. The merits and conclusions of the science favours the non-smoking
tenant, but the lengthy process would be more likely to favour a landlord with
deeper pockets.
Conclusion
There are several legal theories
available for residents of multiple dwelling residential buildings who are
affected by ETS incursion. Each is premised on the existence of a harm to the
non-smoking resident. The health science literature is now available to
demonstrate the harm and thus support the legal theories. The non-smoking
resident must produce evidence of ETS incursion but in some instances need not
show immediate negative health impacts. The scientific literature suggests that
exposure to ETS is harmful over a long period. Courts are beginning to
recognise that ETS exposure in some circumstances may be the basis of a cause
of action. The non-smoking resident may pursue legal action in court or request
the Board of Health use its powers to protect his or her health.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to express his
gratitude to Professor Richard Daynard, Mark Gottlieb, Edward Sweda, Leslie
Harroun, Liliana Mangiafico, and Lydia Berez for sharing research and providing
feedback as this article evolved. The Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program
provided funding for this research.
References
1. Massachusetts Department of
Health, Public Health Fact Sheet, Second Hand Smoke, May 1988. The Department
also lists areas where smoking in public areas is permitted and prohibited as
of 1988, but does not specifically address the issue of ETS incursion into
private dwellings.
2. Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Passive
smoking and heart disease. Circulation 1991;83:1-12[Abstract].
3. California Environmental
Protection Agency. Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
Final Report. California: CEPA, 1997.
4. Stefanidis C, Vlachopoulos C,
Tsiamis E, et al. Unfavorable effects of passive smoking on aortic function Ann
Intern Med 1998;128:426-34.
5. Repace JL, Lowrey AH. An
enforceable indoor air quality standard for environmental tobacco smoke in the
workplace. Risk Analysis 1993;13:463-472[Medline].
6. Helling v. McKinney, 113 S.Ct.
2475 (1993). One court stated "the weight of scientific authority is such
that there may be significant health consequences from involuntary exposure to
tobacco smoke . . .it is now generally accepted within the scientific community
that the direct ingestion of tobacco smoke results in adverse health effects."
7. Avery v. Powell, 695 F. Supp. 632
(D.N.H. 1988) In the case of prisoners exposed to ETS in a residential type
facility the Supreme Court denied the government's motion to dismiss the case
and remanded the case to allow the prisoner to present evidence of the degree
of ETS exposure and the level of harm caused.
8. 105 CMR 410.750.
9. See section of this paper
regarding covenant of quiet enjoyment, supra.
10. 105 CMR 410.850-853.
11. 105 CMR 410.700. (emphasis
added)
12. The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts has stated that "[t]here may be instances where conditions
not covered by the Code regulations render the apartment uninhabitable."
Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 293 N.E.2d 831, 844 n.15 (Mass. 1973).
13. Conn.Gen. Stat. Section 47a-52.
14. Delaware Code Annotated Title
25, Section 5305 and Section 5303(a)(2).
15. Delaware Code Annotated Title
16, Section 305.
16. Colorado Revised Statutes,
Section 25-1-107(t).
17. Colorado Revised Statutes,
Section 25-1-506(1)(j).
18. Restatement (Second) of Torts.
19. Hall v. Phillips, 231 Neb. 269,
273, 436 N.W.2d 139, 143 (1989).
20. The Restatement (Second) of
Torts Section 827.
21. Courts will examine "(a)
the social value that the law attaches to the primary purpose of the conduct;
(b) the suitability of the conduct to the character of the locality; and (c)
the impracticability of preventing or avoiding the invasion"
22. Moreover, smoking is no more of
a fundamental right than shooting-up or snorting heroin or cocaine. Fagen v.
Axelrod, 146 Misc.2d at 297, 550 N.Y.S.2d at 559. If people do have a general
"right of privacy" to smoke the New York legislation merely requires
them to exercise it where it does not harm others. "There is no
differentiation between classes of citizens by this law. Those who smoke have
never in law been recognized as a distinct class." Fagen v. Axelrod at
298, 559.
23. Simon v. Solomon, 385 Mass. 91,
100, 431 N.E.2d 556, 564-565 (quoting Winchester v. O'Brien, 266 Mass. 33, 36,
164 N.E. 807 (1929). M.G.L. c 186 Sec. 14 (1992 ed.).
24. Simon v. Solomon, 385 Mass. at
103, 431 N.E.2d at 565. The court found the landlord liable for breach of
covenant of quiet enjoyment where the flooding of the tenant's apartment with
water containing sewage was a result of other tenants using unauthorized
washing machines or introducing objects into waste stacks, despite landlord's
argument that it was unable to control other tenant's action or the source of
the flooding.
25. "Neither the Lessee nor his
family, friends, relatives, invitees visitors agents or servants shall make or
suffer any unlawful, noisy or otherwise offensive use of the leased premises,
nor commit or permit any nuisance thereon . . .nor create any substantial
interference with the rights, comfort, safety or enjoyment of the Lessor or
other occupants of the same or any other apartment." Paragraph 11,
Standard Form Apartment Lease, Rental Housing Association of the Greater Boston
Real Estate Board, 1996 ed. as reprinted in "Landlord's Rights and Duties
in Massachusetts", Joseph P. DiBlasi, Sphinx Publishing, 1997.
26. "The Lessee agrees to
conform to such lawful rules and regulations which are reasonably related to
the purpose and provisions of this lease, as shall from time to time be
established by the Lessor in the future for the safety, care, cleanliness, or
orderly conduct of the leased premises and the building of which they are a
part, and for the benefit, safety, comfort, and convenience of all the
occupants of said building." Paragraph 18, Standard Form Apartment Lease,
Rental Housing Association of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, 1996 ed. as
reprinted in "Landlord's Rights and Duties in Massachusetts", Joseph
P. DiBlasi, Sphinx Publishing, 1997.
27. Blackett v. Olanoff, 371 Mass.
714, 358 N.E.2d 817 (1977). Dworkin v. Paley, 638 N.E.2d 636 (Ohio Ct. App.
1994).
28. 50-58 Gainsborough Street Realty
Trust v. Haile, Housing Court, City of Boston, MA No. 98-/0/2/2/7/9/, June 8,
1998.
29. Id. at 33-35.
30. "in the rental of any
premises for dwelling purposes . . .there is an implied warranty that the
premises are fit for human occupation . . ." Boston Housing Authority v.
Hemingway, 293 N.E.2d 831, 843 (1973).
31. See Cruz Management Co., Inc. v.
Thoma[s] 417 Mass. 782, 633 N.E.2d 390 (1994). (Management company was assessed
damages for failing to remedy violations of heat, hot water, infestation, smoke
detector, window and wiring, and fire escape State Sanitary Code violations);
Hemingway, 293 N.E.2d 831 (1973) (Court found that under a written or oral
lease there is an implied warranty of habitability based on the State Sanitary
Code and local health regulations that may not be waived by any provision of
the lease or rental agreement, where breach of the warranty entitles the tenant
to withhold rent upon proper notice).
32. Berman & Sons, Inc. v.
Jefferson, 379 Mass. 196, 200-201, 396 N.E.2d 981, 984-985 (1979). Simon v.
Solomon, 385 Mass. 91, 96, 431 N.E.2d 556, 561 (1982).
33. Hemingway, 293 N.E.2d at 843.
34. Id. at 843-44.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 2000 by Tobacco Control