Posted on 04/06/2008 7:20:30 PM PDT by lastchance
This guy is seriously worried about the toxicity of the tiny amount of smoke that seeped through the defendant's apartment, lingered in the hallway for who knows how long before his son walks by, and is probably undetectable within six or seven feet of the defendant's door?
If that's past his danger threshold for filing lawsuits, then this lawyer going to have have his hands full with suits against the apartment complex for the next ten years. Just think of all the other "toxic dangers" lurking around his home. I'm sure there is a cleaning closet somewhere in the building with all kinds of nasty toxic chemicals. Sure, they're all in bottles on the top shelf of a locked room, but some vapors will inevitably seep out of the bottles, flow out of the room, and put his child's life in grave and immediate danger.
Unless, of course, he really *isn't* concerned about the toxicity of the smoke, and just decided to pick on a politically unpopular defendant to satisfy his own p.c. neuroses. But that couldn't be it, not by a long shot.
Don't worry, I'm sure there are already people working on it.
One day bars will serve nothing but one brand of warm near-beer and soggy, unsalted pretzels (don't want anyone to choke now). Those who still want to enjoy a more lively time might be able to find a few places that play a little muzack, and even allow dancing (as long as helmets, kneepads, and the proper footwear are used, of course).
Back before the whole country apparently went insane, I'd think this guy would have to produce a whole battery of medical tests to prove that his little prince had been specifically damaged by the toxins purportedly spewed forth Vesuvius-like from her apartment.
That's the problem.
We're supposed to be living in a representative republic where our elected representatives filter all this kind of B.S.
Yes, Madame....somewhere back in the mists of time, when people weren’t mad as hatters he WOULD have had to produce some proof that Little Lord Fancypants had been harmed.
Sadly, those days are gone when it comes to smokers.
Regards,
We do not live in a Democracy. However I do believe that smoking bans in restaurants are a good thing. Provided they apply to: Restaurants with a certain seating capacity, restaurants that are part of publicly owned larger chain restaurants, ( and exception should be made for mom & pop businesses) allow alternate means like filtration systems to clear smoke, permit outside smoking areas, permit inside smoking areas if smoke is filtered as mentioned.
I am a non smoker. My husband and I went to a hookah bar/restaurant. We were not bothered by any smoke at all. As for a cigar bar why would a non smoker go there?
If the smoke produces a measurable toxin as defined in law and can be determined to be in violation of that measure then by all means the court should rule that the defendent reduce that toxin.
But that is a pretty big if, considering all the lady has already done to mitigate the effects, the other sources of toxic fumes in lovely NYC and varying factors that can effect proper measurement.
Probably the best thing for the plaintiffs to do is buy there child a SCBA, or move to Antarctica.
NORTH ROYALTON, Ohio — Some people in North Royalton are fuming over a proposed ban on outdoor smoking.
The proposed law would make it illegal to smoke in parks, fields, parking lots and outdoor seating areas.
Council members said the outdoor ban is in response to complaints about people smoking around children during youth sports games.
The city’s safety committee will hold a hearing on the issue on April 15.
http://www.newsnet5.com/health/15813003/detail.html
IT IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL, ISN’T IT?
I agree. It doesn’t have to be that way. It’s called leadership.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.