It sounds like CJ is also in favor of suing a neighbor over a charcoal BBQ. I think that's where the 'slippery slope' fears show some validity. Law enforcement has no desire to enforce such subjective complaints, neither will a judge rule in his favor.
" Washington Courts, 2010-04-19
Author: Court of Appeals Division I State of Washington
Intro:
Christopher Boffoli filed a complaint for trespass, nuisance, and injunctive relief against his neighbor for producing cigarette smoke that intrudes into his home. The trial court denied Boffoli's demand for a jury trial. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for the defendant. Because Boffoli fails to demonstrate error, we affirm. . . .
In his amended complaint, Boffoli alleged that his neighbors, XXXX, "continuously smoke cigarettes on a south-facing front deck of their residence on a daily basis" causing smoke to "regularly intrude onto [his] property" through air intake vents and windows. Boffoli further alleged that he had asked the XXXX to remedy the situation and had sent them letters but that the XXXX "were unresponsive" and "continued to smoke cigarettes at their residence, thereby causing the secondhand smoke intrusion to [his] home to continue." Boffoli requested specific injunctive relief prohibiting the XXXX "from causing cigarette smoke particles and gases to intrude onto [Boffoli's] property, and . . . from allowing their guests or others to smoke on their property at any location from which the secondhand smoke particles and gases will trespass onto plaintiff's property or into his residence, and unreasonably interfere with [Boffoli's] use and enjoyment of his property." Boffoli also sought damages "in an amount to be determined at trial."
On the day of trial, the trial court noted that the thrust of the complaint was an action for equitable relief and denied Boffoli's request for a jury trial. Boffoli and XXXX then testified and presented witnesses, other evidence, and argument. After a week's recess to allow the parties a final chance at settlement, the trial court stated, "The Court has concluded that based on the evidence, and the law, that there is no legal authority for the Court to issue this injunction," and dismissed the case. . . .
On this briefing and on this limited record, Boffoli fails to establish an actionable claim of trespass or demonstrate any error by the trial court."
I think everyone here agrees that we should all strive for courtesy and consideration. I just think trying to pass nanny laws and sue your neighbors is poor form.
westseattleblog
West Seattle Blog
West Seattle Blog
