A bartender with asthma sued her employer for worker’s compensation benefits after suffering an attack of constricted breathing, which required a trip to the emergency room and overnight hospitalizations. The state supreme court ruled that it was allowable for the employee to receive worker’s compensation benefits. The court ruled that the employee was not guilty of willful misconduct for working in a smoke-filled environment with her asthmatic condition. The court agreed with the lower court that the employee was eligible for worker’s compensation because the employee’s injury happened at work and her doctor said the smoky environment at work was a major contributing cause of the employee’s injury.
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
A claim against an employer involving a person who is harmed by secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace. For example, an employee with asthma may sue their employer for failing to protect them from exposure to secondhand smoke in the office or an employee with cancer may sue for workers’ compensation benefits. This may also include claims for workers' compensation. Disability laws also may protect customers who are not able to patronize a business filled with smoky air because of their disability.
A bartender with asthma sued her employer for worker’s compensation benefits after suffering an attack of constricted breathing, which required a trip to the emergency room and overnight hospitalizations. The state supreme court ruled that it was allowable for the employee to receive worker’s compensation benefits. The court ruled that the employee was not guilty of willful misconduct for working in a smoke-filled environment with her asthmatic condition. The court agreed with the lower court that the employee was eligible for worker’s compensation because the employee’s injury happened at work and her doctor said the smoky environment at work was a major contributing cause of the employee’s injury.