Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Secondhand Smoke topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Passes Substitute to Expand Nuisance Remedies for Drifting Secondhand Smoke
Summary
The House adopted a third substitute to Senate Bill 49 to allow nuisance suits and require lease/purchase disclosure when tobacco smoke drifts into residential units, while carving out landlord protections and excluding short-term rentals; the bill passed on third reading after amendment and debate.
The Utah House of Representatives on March 5 adopted a third substitute to Senate Bill 49, a measure that treats drifting tobacco smoke as a potential nuisance in rental and condominium units and requires disclosure to prospective tenants and buyers.
Supporters, including Representative Sarah Allen, said the substitute keeps the core health protections while narrowing the bill to avoid frivolous suits. "The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that environmental tobacco smoke is a group a carcinogen," Allen told the chamber, and the substitute allows renters or purchasers to know in advance whether a unit may be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.
The measure allows a civil nuisance suit when drifting tobacco smoke injures health and sets a burden of proof on plaintiffs, including a frequency requirement (repeated occurrences over consecutive periods) and a requirement that the smoke constitute a nuisance to health. Sponsors said the bill preserves existing landlord defenses: if the lease or condominium documents disclose smoking conditions or the landlord makes a documented attempt to address a complaint after written notice, landlords are shielded from liability.
Floor debate focused on the scope of the bill. Some members pressed to exclude timeshare interests or certain short-term rentals; others said timeshare units in condominium projects can house year-round residents and should be covered. Several technical amendments were proposed and some were accepted; sponsors explained that removing an attorney-fee provision made the measure more pragmatic and reduced incentives for litigation.
On third reading the House recorded the bill as passed and returned it to the Senate for further action. The vote tally reported in the House minutes was 45 yes and 22 no.
The bill now goes back to the Senate for any further action required before final enrollment.
