[theDentist]

That is effing ridiculous, especially since it was allowed by their lease.

[Dallas59]

Smoking is allowed but only 2 cigarettes per person per hour...

[1stFreedom]

Really? I live in an apartment above a heavy smoker, and it simply rises into my apartment. I have asthma, and it's certainly makes me ill.

In addition, my apartment smells like I am a heavy smoker.

Now you tell me, since I don't choose to smoke, what the solution is?

It's either 1. He goes, or 2. The landlord releases me from my lease.

Remember, your rights stop where my body begins. In this case you could say your rights stop where your apartment walls end, and if your actions go beyond your walls, then you are subject to eviction, etc.

[cracker]

Article says:

"the jury found that the couple's heavy smoking violated a more general clause banning 'any nuisance; any offensive noise, odor or fumes; or any hazard to health.' "

The smoke and odor were invading the neighboring apartments. When I rent an apartment I like it to be free of my neighbors' noxious odors. It's like loud music or other noises: you can make noise, but not so much that you disturb the neighbors. These smokers could smoke, but not so much that they disturb the neighbors.

[CharacterCounts]

That is effing ridiculous, especially since it was allowed by their lease

This isn't a smoking or smoker's trights issue at all.

Most leases don't prohibit talking, but if a tenant talks so loudly the neighbors complain the landlord has the right to evict them.

[af_vet_1981]

I agree with the ruling because landlords need more rights (and I do hate smoking) to balance the bias toward renters in the courts.

[hispanichoosier]

That is effing ridiculous, especially since it was allowed by their lease.

No, it's not. The theory of nuisance is a tort theory, not a contract theory. Thus, their contract rights are irrelevant.

Moreover, to show nuisance, the plaintiff has to demonstrate that the defendant is creating a substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of his property. The jury simply chose to believe that their smoking was a substantial interference.