Granted details are absent, but WTF?

Temporary injunction bars man from lighting up inside his Washington home after neighbors sue
Published March 10, 2015Associated Press
WASHINGTON –  A temporary order by a Superior Court judge is keeping a man from smoking inside his home in the District of Columbia.

WJLA-TV (http://bit.ly/1BrlPLl ) reports that Edwin Gray's next door neighbors in northeast Washington have filed a civil suit claiming they're being harmed by smoke that sneaks into their home through a hole in the basement. They are seeking an injunction and $500,000 in damages.

A judge issued a temporary injunction last week saying neither Gray nor any family or guests may smoke in the home the family has owned for 50 years. Gray's sister, Mozella Johnson, says they will fight.

In court filings and a statement, the neighbors say they tried to work with Johnson and Gray, and filed suit when mediation attempts failed.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/10/temporary-injunction-bars-man-from-lighting-up-inside-his-washington-home-after/

I wouldn't want someone's cigarette smoke getting into my house and stinking it up.  But how on earth how can it get into a neighbors house?  Do they share a common wall or some vent system?

Quote from: Dori on March 10, 2015, 05:37:18 PM
I wouldn't want someone's cigarette smoke getting into my house and stinking it up.  But how on earth how can it get into a neighbors house?  Do they share a common wall or some vent system?

Nuisance, maybe, but harm? These people are nuts and so is the judge for entertaining an injunction.
This is no different than being nude in your background and your prude neighbor sues you.
In a sane world a judge would tell the prude to quit looking and get a damned curtain.

Why didn't these people seal the damn hole?
Like I said, details are absent, so it's hard to comment, but I believe the judge overstepped.

Quote from: Solar on March 10, 2015, 05:50:39 PM
Nuisance, maybe, but harm? These people are nuts and so is the judge for entertaining an injunction.
This is no different than being nude in your background and your prude neighbor sues you.
In a sane world a judge would tell the prude to quit looking and get a damned curtain.

Why didn't these people seal the damn hole?
Like I said, details are absent, so it's hard to comment, but I believe the judge overstepped.

The judge should tell them to pressurize the house to keep the smoke out.  That's like tell a jet not to fly over head.  I they don't wish smoke in there house it don't take much to keep it out. 

There's not much information here. Whose basement has the hole? Do these people share a building? It never says that the guy is barred from smoking inside his "house," but rather inside his "home." That could mean a lot of different arrangements.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 10, 2015, 06:23:38 PM
There's not much information here. Whose basement has the hole? Do these people share a building? It never says that the guy is barred from smoking inside his "house," but rather inside his "home." That could mean a lot of different arrangements.

Then he can just go outside his house/home and have his friends come over and have a smock out. 

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 10, 2015, 06:23:38 PM
There's not much information here. Whose basement has the hole? Do these people share a building? It never says that the guy is barred from smoking inside his "house," but rather inside his "home." That could mean a lot of different arrangements.

Agree, the article is extremely vague.
But I don't follow your point in differentiating between house and home? 

Quote from: Solar on March 10, 2015, 08:50:01 PM
Agree, the article is extremely vague.
But I don't follow your point in differentiating between house and home?

Just that 'house' generally denotes an individual residence, a stand-alone domicile. A house is a fairly specific sort of structure, a residence that is by itself.

'Home,' on the other hand, can mean lots of things, from apartment to condo to half-double or half-duplex. It can mean something as small and crowded as a space in a shared dorm room or as roomy as as an abandoned loft in a factory building.

Even when I'm home, I know where and what the house is. See?

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 11, 2015, 02:10:33 AM
Just that 'house' generally denotes an individual residence, a stand-alone domicile. A house is a fairly specific sort of structure, a residence that is by itself.

'Home,' on the other hand, can mean lots of things, from apartment to condo to half-double or half-duplex. It can mean something as small and crowded as a space in a shared dorm room or as roomy as as an abandoned loft in a factory building.

Even when I'm home, I know where and what the house is. See?

Got it. But do you suppose the judge was really being all that specific, considering this verdict didn't appear to carry all that much thought.

I see what you meant though.

I've heard of condos and apartments having this problem.  Don't they make those smoking purifiers that sucks in the smoke so it doesn't travel and annoy others? 

Quote from: Dori on March 11, 2015, 09:13:35 AM
I've heard of condos and apartments having this problem.  Don't they make those smoking purifiers that sucks in the smoke so it doesn't travel and annoy others?

They're worthless. Nice concept, but totally worthless.
If anything, and assuming this is some kind of condo, or attached housing, the owner needs to install a simple bathroom exhaust vent.

Like I said, too little information. But I've had issues with idiot neighbors with noise issues. One had a military generator that was extremely disruptive for over a mile, I asked if he'd like me to help him build a shed to contain it, he refused, and another neighbor sabotaged it a week later. I wasn't the only one that had issues with this particular idiot.

Another had two dogs that barked constantly, all day and night long, I asked if he could quiet them, he said they bark because they were chained up and couldn't reach one another.
I offered to build a pen, at my expense, he refused. I called animal control, they investigated and seized the dogs for cruelty.

Apparently they weren't being fed, no water. The officer told me they were barking because they were dying.

People can be stupid, and I imagine that played a part here, but I still have to question an injunction, maybe a fine pending, but to dictate what one does in the privacy of their own home, (and I question the harm claim) is akin to telling people they can't have sex because it "harms" the neighbors sensitivities.

Quote from: Solar on March 11, 2015, 06:08:32 AM
Got it. But do you suppose the judge was really being all that specific, considering this verdict didn't appear to carry all that much thought.

I see what you meant though.

It makes a difference, I think. Say, for instance, that the guy lived in a house, a building not physically adjoined to any other. Even if somebody's got a "hole in the basement," smoke migrating from his house to someone else's is kind of a stretch, to my mind. And even if it did happen that way, what would be the difference if the guy went outside to smoke?

On the other hand, when Mrs. Tbone and I got married, our "home" for a while was a townhouse apartment that had a full basement. The building had four units side by side, and the basements of the units were separated by cinderblock walls -- which were generously perforated for the accommodation of things like water lines, sewer pipes, gas lines, etc. In a situation like that, I can see how cigarette smoke could migrate from one "home" to another.

As an ex-smoker (going on eight years) I can attest to a sensitivity to cigarette smoke that I never thought I'd have. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that if I'm driving with my windows down, and the guy or gal in the car ahead of me is smoking, I can smell it, and when that happens I roll up the windows and kick on the A/C. But I don't file suit against the other driver. 

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 11, 2015, 02:47:32 PM
It makes a difference, I think. Say, for instance, that the guy lived in a house, a building not physically adjoined to any other. Even if somebody's got a "hole in the basement," smoke migrating from his house to someone else's is kind of a stretch, to my mind. And even if it did happen that way, what would be the difference if the guy went outside to smoke?

On the other hand, when Mrs. Tbone and I got married, our "home" for a while was a townhouse apartment that had a full basement. The building had four units side by side, and the basements of the units were separated by cinderblock walls -- which were generously perforated for the accommodation of things like water lines, sewer pipes, gas lines, etc. In a situation like that, I can see how cigarette smoke could migrate from one "home" to another.

As an ex-smoker (going on eight years) I can attest to a sensitivity to cigarette smoke that I never thought I'd have. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that if I'm driving with my windows down, and the guy or gal in the car ahead of me is smoking, I can smell it, and when that happens I roll up the windows and kick on the A/C. But I don't file suit against the other driver. 

Yeah, I too quit back in 1980, and to this day can't stand the smell, but would never take legal action, let alone be so stupid as to claim it's harming me, maybe irritating, but harm?