Motor Vehicle Emissions Criminalized

[ILUVTulsa]

Tulsa Revised Ordinance
17 TRO 703: NUISANCE
No person shall cause or allow the discharge, emission or release into the atmosphere from any source whatsoever of such quantities of air contaminant or other material as may cause injury, endanger health, damage property, or affect public health, well being or safety. Such quantities shall be deemed a public nuisance and subject to penalty as hereinafter provided.

17 TRO 709(B)(1): General Prohibition.
No person owning, leasing or controlling the operation of any air contaminant source shall willfully, negligently or through failure to provide necessary equipment or facilities or through failure to take necessary precaution, permit the emission from the contaminant source of such quantities of air contamination as will cause a condition of air pollution.

17 TRO 720: PENALTIES
Any person who violates any provision of the Clean Air Code or any final order issued by the Director of Health pursuant to the provisions of this code and fails to permanently cease such violation of such order within ten (10) days after receipt of notice from the Department of Health specifying such violation shall be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the City Jail for not more than ninety (90) days and/or by a fine of not more than THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($300.00), excluding costs. Each day of violation shall be considered a separate offense.

How to Recover Damages:

1) File a police report charging anyone or legal entity who uses motor vehicles to emit air pollutants.

2) File a tort claim with the City Clerk.

3) Sue for personal injury civil damages.  Enjoy your retirement!

[patric]

Tulsa Revised Ordinance
17 TRO 703: NUISANCE
No person shall cause or allow the discharge, emission or release into the atmosphere from any source whatsoever of such quantities of air contaminant or other material as may cause injury, endanger health, damage property, or affect public health, well being or safety. Such quantities shall be deemed a public nuisance and subject to penalty as hereinafter provided.

So who do we go after first?  Sinclair, AEP, Tulsa Transit, TPS?

[ILUVTulsa]

I LOVE Tulsa.  So, I'd have to nail CoT first!  They are also EASY lay-down.  Who was Alvin McGee's attorney?  Let's make his retirement too!

[Gaspar]

Not very enforceable, unless the plaintiff can prove injury. 

The ordinance is extremely broad and subjective.  The phrase:

"such quantities of air contaminant or other material as may cause injury, endanger health, damage property, or affect public health, well being or safety."

States no particulate count, or specific chemical restriction.  Does nothing to define contaminants or "other materials".

According to this ordinance, smoke from a chimney, chimanea, automotive exhaust, the smell of pizza, or even a really really bad f@rt (you know who you are) could be in violation if someone claimed it violated their "well being".

We have several ordinances that carry little or no muscle because they were written for political reasons, not legal enforceability.

Has anyone ever been prosecuted under this? 

If so, their lawyer should be disbarred for incompetence.

[Townsend]

If you own a cat can you get busted for cat hair?

Is a cat owner allowing the discharge of animal dander and fur into the air?

I know some folks who would consider it harmful.

[rwarn17588]

Playing devil's advocate here ... not disagreeing a whit with Gaspar's criticisms.

What if you have poorly maintained cars that spew so much smoke from the tailpipe that you have trouble seeing the road ahead? (And, yes, I've actually seen such vehicles.)

I would think that a car that pollutes so much that you can't SEE would fall into several areas of being a hazard, including traffic danger.

And thinking aloud again ... It's been my experience that such ordinances are applied only to the most egregious examples, such as the one I described above. It's not the best way to handle it, I suppose, but such an ordinance gives the city a weapon against smoke-belching jalopies that shouldn't even be on the road.

[ILUVTulsa]

Not very enforceable, unless the plaintiff can prove injury. 

Cause of Action: EPA Declares Motor Vehicle Emissions Health Threat

It probably wouldn't pay to nail the average f@rter.  Pocket not deep enough.  But, CoT...that's your RETIREMENT, even with a settlement, handled by any given incompetent attorney in town!

[Gaspar]

Cause of Action: EPA Declares Motor Vehicle Emissions Health Threat

It probably wouldn't pay to nail the average f@rter.  Pocket not deep enough.  But, CoT...that's your RETIREMENT, even with a settlement, handled by any given incompetent attorney in town!

Let me know how that works out for ya. 

You are confused.  You cite an ordinance, but remark about a law suit.  Those are completely different.

The ordinance is not enforceable, so lets just forget about that bit of fluff, it has no bearing on a law suit. 

A law suit against X, if you could prove that you were harmed by some airborne pollutant released by X is very plausible, the burden of proof would be upon you, and it would probably involve some medical testimony and chemical analysis of the source to prove it has caused you harm for which monetary damages are appropriate.  I would think if this was the case, than a much larger class action suit would be appropriate, because it would be a bit far fetched for an airborne agent to only affect your little lungs and no one else.

[Ed W]

Hi, Paul.

[ILUVTulsa]

I would think if this was the case, than a much larger class action suit would be appropriate, because it would be a bit far fetched for an airborne agent to only affect your little lungs and no one else.

EXACTLY.  I suspect any given incompetent, possibly greedy, and in serious need of a stimulus plan for retirement, attorney is already way ahead of either you or me.

If in fact the ordinance is unenforcable, the City Council should repeal it and essentially say air pollution is ok.

If it is enforcable, the City Council, as individuals, should consider themselves under arrest.  The City Council and its actions have no legitimacy, as long as they continue to break the law.

[cannon_fodder]

How to Recover Damages:

1) File a police report charging anyone or legal entity who uses motor vehicles to emit air pollutants.

2) File a tort claim with the City Clerk.

3) Sue for personal injury civil damages.  Enjoy your retirement!

A) This municipal ordinance does not create a cause of action.  You can file a TORT claim against anyone for any wrong.  Duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.  People have a duty not to poison you.  If they emit an obscene amount of pollution they (arguably) are poisoning you.  That might cause an illness.  That illness might then cause damages. 

Again, the ordinance does not create any special cause of action.

B) Which means it would be nearly impossible to prove.  Is there a duty to a single person not to pollute?  Did this one vehicle cause you harm?  One time exposure to the most horrible exhaust along the roadway is unlikely to cause any damages at all, let alone provable harm.

I don't think you could prove breach of duty, causation, or damages.  In my legal opinion, under the general circumstances described, you'd be paying for attorney fees for filing a frivolous action.  A serious attempt to collect would involve tens of thousands of dollars in expert fees to try and establish causation and damages.  Even if it was deemed an actionable cause.

C) Furthermore, the ordinance doesn't criminalize anything.  It assesses a civil fine for the infraction of $300.  As a nuisance it is as criminal as skateboarding on public property or playing your music too loud, which is to say not at all "criminal."

D) The statute is unenforceable.  Unless there are some kind of guidelines it references or otherwise incorporates, you can't enforce a statute against "such quantities" of pollution that they might that day deem wrongful.  No way it would stand up to a challenge.  At least make it "visibly obvious" or "in the officers trained opinion" or something that would make leaving clouds of smoke in your trail deemed a nuisance.  But as it is written, it is entirely too vague.

[Chicken Little]

Hi, Paul.

[ILUVTulsa]

A) This municipal ordinance does not create a cause of action.  You can file a TORT claim against anyone for any wrong.  Duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.  People have a duty not to poison you.  If they emit an obscene amount of pollution they (arguably) are poisoning you.  That might cause an illness.  That illness might then cause damages. 

Again, the ordinance does not create any special cause of action.

B) Which means it would be nearly impossible to prove.  Is there a duty to a single person not to pollute?  Did this one vehicle cause you harm?  One time exposure to the most horrible exhaust along the roadway is unlikely to cause any damages at all, let alone provable harm.

I don't think you could prove breach of duty, causation, or damages.  In my legal opinion, under the general circumstances described, you'd be paying for attorney fees for filing a frivolous action.  A serious attempt to collect would involve tens of thousands of dollars in expert fees to try and establish causation and damages.  Even if it was deemed an actionable cause.

C) Furthermore, the ordinance doesn't criminalize anything.  It assesses a civil fine for the infraction of $300.  As a nuisance it is as criminal as skateboarding on public property or playing your music too loud, which is to say not at all "criminal."

D) The statute is unenforceable.  Unless there are some kind of guidelines it references or otherwise incorporates, you can't enforce a statute against "such quantities" of pollution that they might that day deem wrongful.  No way it would stand up to a challenge.  At least make it "visibly obvious" or "in the officers trained opinion" or something that would make leaving clouds of smoke in your trail deemed a nuisance.  But as it is written, it is entirely too vague.

You are correct, counselor.  The ordinance itself is not cause of action for civil damages.   However, it is probable cause for arrest alleging a misdemeanor criminal offense, punishable by up to 90 days in jail.  The Municipal Court judge on the arraignment docket would require the defendant to appear with counsel, before allowing further proceedings.

How ever vague the ordinance, there's no room for acquittal, under the black letter of the law, even with strict interpretation.   A criminal conviction makes the civil case easier.

Click for--->> civil cause of action.