Could i sue?

Question

could i sue anyone for smoking around me...since its called Second hand smoking and its more harmful then the person smoking the cig.
and Techinally speaking, it's involuntary manslaughter.

replying to Deathbear....*your retarded...go look your sources up...second hand smoking is and has been proven to be much worse then first hand smoking.....

Answer 1

I don't think you could sue. Since smoking is outlawed in most workplaces (unless you work in a restaurant), and in all government buildings, you can always walk away from someone smoking.
And if you aren't dead yet (since you're writing this question), it can't be manslaughter - manslaughter requires a body.
I think your only recourse is to walk away.

Answer 2

You've grossly overstated the provable charges (remember, as the plaintiff, YOU have the burden of PROOF).

On the other hand, IF you could get a competent jury, you should be able to win rather easily on simple battery -- but your suit would probably take the form of a test case, and that means you're out lots of mulah that, thanks to the machinations of tort reform, you will almost certainly never recover.

Consult an attorney BEFORE you file suit. Contrary to what Bush and the GOP would have you believe, frivolous lawsuits have been illegal since at least the 1800s, and the law has always severely penalized those having brough frivolous suits.

Unfortunately, the law is unevenly applied: people like GW Bush get away with outrages like his (Y2K election cycle) suit against an Internet publisher of political speech: Boy George took offense at political satire and parody (THE principal reasons for the "freedom of speech and of the press," clause in the First Amendment).

Although Boy George's lawsuit was prima facie frivolous (and the Court rightly so determined), the harassment and legal fees he forced upon the defendant drove the defendant into bankruptcy. Apparently, the law does not in any meaningful sense apply to Bush when Bush violates the law.

Don't get lost on that point: sure, Bush is an evil bastard that should rot in hell, and he's been at war against our Rights since before he TOOK Office -- but that isn't the point. The point is that you need to know which way the political wind is blowing in your jurisdiction.

In court, credibility is everything. Getting the information you need during discovery is a pain in the butt:

> there are all sorts of limitations on time that seem to pop up at the most inopportune time

> compound discovery requests are not allowed: each interrogatory must ask exactly ONE question, each request for production must ask for exactly ONE thing.

If you word your request carefully, you can ask for one CATEGORY of things (which satisfies the particularity requirement) -- but you have to be careful to avoid being seen as harassing the party(s) of whom the request was made. The opposing party(s) will immediately whine to the court, and probably ask for sanctions against you -- which means you will have the affirmative burden of proving the reasonablemess of your request.

> You are limited to the number of interrogatories (questions), the number of requests for production and the number of requests for admissions that you may put to the opposing party without leave of the court. In each instance, the number is usually a SHOCKINGLY small number.

At least in Mississippi: before the matter is heard by the court, you will have to prove to the satisfaction of the court that you diligently tried to resolve the dispute without resorting to legal action.

That might mean, as others have suggested, walking away or looking for alternate employment; however, that isn't always an option: not every "help wanted" sign advertises a job that anyone can get. It will certainly involve either (a) making the offenders aware of the problem, (b) making your supervisor [or other party responsible for workplace policy] aware of the problem, or both.

If it's just a problem that, for instance, happens at your favorite restaurant while you're dating, you're SOL.

Answer 3

Yes you probably could sue, but. should you. I think that is the problem with the justice system, it is clogged up with irrelevant lawsuits. However, I would dig a little deeper into your medical journals. There seems to be widespread debate on the second hand smoke. Many doctors agree that is worse, but just as many doctors argue that it can't possibly be as bad as first hand, mainly because the smoker is the one absorbing 80% of the chemicals and the second hand contains considerable less toxins. Now, in my opinion, doctors are going to go with whoever pays them the most. Look at eggs, three times they have flipped on that. Good,bad,good. Now the official medical statement is that eggs are ok as long as they are eaten in moderation. And to think they went to med school for that... Darn near everything is ok if used in moderation!!!! Genius...

Answer 4

You can sue anyone for anything. You just may not win. If its an area that you can walk away from then I would recommend walking away. If you have an enclosed area that you have to be in for long lengths of time such as your work station, where smoking is illegally allowed, then you have a valid complaint. The exception would be if you work in a bar or restaurant, then I recommend you get another job.

Answer 5

First off, second hand smoke is not worse than first-hand smoke.

And, technically speaking, they're not killing you by doing it, so it's not manslaughter