Plaintiff
Donna M. Shimp
Defendant
New Jersey Bell Telephone Company
Plaintiff's Claim
An injunction should be issued requiring her employer, New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, to enact a ban on smoking in the workplace.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff
Charles A. Sweeney
Chief Defense Lawyer
Stuart B. Finifter
Judge
Philip A. Gruccio (writing for the court)
Place
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division
Date of Decision
20 December 1976
Decision
An injunction can be issued requiring New Jersey Bell Telephone Company to ban workplace smoking.
Significance
The ruling found that a worker's common law right to a safe working environment is threatened by the presence of second-hand or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), and that an employee with a medical sensitivity to ETS has the common law right to require an employer to ban smoking in the workplace.
A Major Public Health Concern
Tobacco smoke has been established as a carcinogen and is also associated with emphysema, heart disease, stroke, and other conditions. The health risks incurred by smokers could also affect those who are exposed to tobacco smoke involuntarily. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that second-hand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in nonsmokers, and the U.S. Labor Department reported that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has killed many more workers than have workplace homicides. Despite concrete evidence on the dangers of ETS, workers exposed to this substance have not hada single clear means through which to pursue remedies for injuries.
Both state and federal courts have grappled with the issue of how best to address the problem of ETS related health problems in the workplace. Plaintiffshave tried several different causes of action under either statutory or regulatory provisions. These include claims under the Americans with DisabilitiesAct and claims under workers' compensation laws, in which parties sought monetary awards from employers after becoming ill or injured on the job. The decision in Shimp v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, in which the plaintiff sought injunctive relief instead of damages, is notable in that it was not based on statutory law but on principles of common law. Common law is a body of law, inherited from England, in which courts resolve disputes between parties without regard to any particular statute, or written law. Decisions are based upon precedent (prior decisions) and essentially balance the rights of the parties before the court on the basis of fundamental concepts of equityand common sense.
A Common Law Right
Donna M. Shimp, a secretary at New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, successfully sought injunctive relief against her employer through the common law argument. Shimp was employed in an area in which other employees were permitted tosmoke at their desks. She contended that inhalation of the resulting ETS washarmful to her health, and therefore her employer, by condoning the presenceof ETS, allowed an unsafe working condition to exist. She brought an action in New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, seeking an injunction, or court order, that would require New Jersey Bell Telephone to ban workplace smoking.
Shimp presented affidavits from attending physicians documenting that she wasallergic to cigarette smoke and suffered such symptoms as severe throat irritation, nasal irritation, nosebleeds, eye irritation which resulted in corneal abrasion and corneal erosion, headaches, nausea, and vomiting. Shimp was forced to leave the workplace on numerous occasions because of these symptoms.These symptoms abated, however, whenever Shimp remained in an area free of smoke. Shimp attempted to resolve the problem of workplace ETS through her union's collective bargaining grievance procedures, by which it was agreed that the employer would install an exhaust fan in the work area. But because otherworkers complained of the resulting draft, the fan was often turned off and did not solve the problem. Thus Shimp brought her action in New Jersey Superior Court.
Justice Gruccio decided the issue based on the briefs submitted by the lawyers representing the plaintiff and the defendant. Because the case was a matterof first impression--it involved a legal issue not yet ruled upon in that jurisdiction--Justice Gruccio relied on principles of common law. He consideredthree issues: whether the Occupation Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and workers' compensation regulations on workplace safety allowed a worker to seek injunctive relief through the courts; whether the plaintiff's complaint was basedon a legitimate medical condition; and whether the complaint was causally related to the presence of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace.
Citing rulings from McDonald v. Standard Oil Co., Burns v. Delawareand Atlantic Tel. And Tel. Co., Clayton v. Ainsworth, Davis v.N.J. Zinc Co., and Canonica v. Celanese Corp. of America, JusticeGruccio found that "It is clearly the law in this state that an employee hasa right to work in a safe environment." The court stressed that this is a duty imposed both by common law and by the OSHA of 1970. Justice Gruccio emphasized that OSHA's general duty clause imposes on the employer "a duty to eliminate all foreseeable and preventable hazards" and that this clause "recognizes concurrent state power to act either legislatively or judicially under thecommon law with regard to occupational safety." In addition, the court wrotethat nothing in the Workmen's Compensation Act, which regulated procedures for seeking monetary damages after an injury, prohibited workers from pursuinginjunctive relief against occupational hazards. Therefore, Justice Gruccio determined that the plaintiff's suit against her employer was a proper cause ofaction and that the court had authority to resolve the matter.
Clear and Overwhelming Evidence
The court found that the affidavits from the plaintiff's attending physiciansconfirmed her medical sensitivity to tobacco smoke. Furthermore, Justice Gruccio cited evidence from the 1970 Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act and from the 1975 HEW report, The Health Consequences of Smoking, documentingthe toxic nature of cigarette smoke. He further noted that the surgeon general's 1972 report of the same title demonstrated that the presence of cigarette smoke increased the carbon monoxide level and added tar, nicotine, and theoxides of nitrogen to the air. Affidavits from several other health professionals, including researchers and specialists in the fields of cancer, cardiovascular disease, allergies, and industrial and occupational medicine, furtherdocumented the adverse effects of ETS. "The evidence is clear and overwhelming," wrote Justice Gruccio. "Cigarette smoke . . . [creates] a health hazard not merely to the smoker but to all those around her who must rely on the sameair supply." Taking judicial notice of the toxic nature of cigarette smoke,he ordered New Jersey Bell Telephone Company "to provide safe working conditions for plaintiff by restricting the smoking of employees to the non-work area presently used as a lunchroom."
In his analysis, Justice Gruccio stressed two important distinctions betweenShimp's claim and that brought in Canonico v. Celanese Corp. of America (1951). In that case, the plaintiff sought damages after contracting an illness allegedly resulting from the inhalation of cellulose acetate dust in theworkplace. The trial judge dismissed the case, and this decision was upheldon appeal. The dust inhaled by the plaintiff, the courts found, was the necessary by-product of the manufacturing process in which he was employed--in other words, the product could not be produced without creating the dust. The courts therefore ruled that breathing these particles should be considered a risk assumed knowingly by the employee as an "ordinary incident to his employment." Furthermore, the trial judge found no convincing evidence that the cellulose acetate dust was toxic or that the plaintiff's illness was caused by breathing this substance. In Shimp, however, the court found that cigarette smoke was not related in any way to the work done at New Jersey Bell Telephone Company and "cannot be regarded as an occupational hazard which plaintiff has voluntarily assumed in pursuing a career as a secretary." Second, the health hazards of secondary smoke have been well documented. Thus, the court determined that "employees' right to a safe working environment makes it clearthat smoking must be forbidden in the work area."
Balancing Rights and Legislative Response
In ordering the injunction against New Jersey Bell Telephone, the court acknowledged that the rights of nonsmokers in the workplace must be balanced against the rights of smokers, but stated firmly that "The right of an individualto risk his or her own health does not include the right to jeopardize the health of those who must remain around him or her in order to properly performthe duties of their jobs." Justice Gruccio noted that employees who wished tosmoke during their own time "should have a reasonably accessible area in which to smoke." He reasoned that limiting smoking to non-work areas would impose no unreasonable hardship upon the employer.
Shimp established the toxic effect of ETS on nonsmokers and ruled thatthe substance should be included among those that an employer should reasonably foresee as a preventable work hazard. This set the stage for workers to bring claims against employers. Responding to employee complaints, and anticipating possible liability, many private employers began to regulate on-the-jobsmoking. But smokers also asserted their rights, making statutory regulationof workplace smoking a passionately contested issue. As of 1993, according to a Valparaiso University Law Review article by Melissa A. Vallone, only 14 states had enacted legislation against ETS, and none of these banned on-the-job smoking entirely. In Your Rights in the Workplace, Barbara Kate Repa noted that by 1996 a majority of states had imposed some regulationsprotecting workers from ETS, but that no federal law directly prohibited workplace smoking. A small handful of cities prohibit workplace smoking outright.On the other hand, about half of the states have laws making it illegal to discriminate against employees who smoke during their free time. "So the ongoing legal battle in most workplaces," Repa concluded, "boils down to a question of what is more important: one person's right to preserve health by avoiding co-workers' tobacco smoke, or another's unfettered right to smoke."
The federal government's first major action against ETS came in 1988, when itbanned smoking aboard domestic airline flights of less than two hours' duration. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended "that every company have a smoking policy that effectively protects nonsmokers from involuntaryexposure to tobacco smoke" but as of the late 1990s, this had not been madeinto law. New OSHA regulations proposed in 1994 would require all non-industrial businesses to devise and implement plans to protect workers from indoor air pollution, including tobacco smoke. But strong opposition erupted when those proposals were made public. In 1997, President Clinton issued an executiveorder banning smoking in federal workplaces, but the issue of smoking in private workplaces had not yet been resolved by federal law.
The Path Ahead
Though the Shimp case established an employer's common law duty to protect employees from ETS, analysts have found that the cause of action in thiscase may be questionable. According to Vallone, as of 1993, Shimp wasthe only case to grant injunctive relief to a plaintiff under the common lawtheory. In a Washington Supreme Court case, McCarthy v. Department of Social & Health Services (1988), only four justices--a minority of the court--agreed that plaintiff could claim a common law right to protection fromETS. In a subsequent New Jersey case, Smith v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey (1983), the same court that had ruled on Shimp suggested that the Shimp decision required an employer to enact "Draconian measures" against smoking employees and that it imposed prohibitions that"are too sweeping and go well beyond what is necessary to ensure a safe working environment." Thus, Vallone concluded, "the only court that granted reliefto an ETS victim under this [common law] theory later questioned the validity of the decision."
Other workers, though, later won damages (i.e., money settlements) against employers because of the harm resulting from ETS. And liability was broadened to include tobacco companies themselves as well as employers. In a 1991 classaction suit, for example, airline flight attendants in the United States wona $300 million settlement against the tobacco industry for injuries caused bybreathing ETS on planes. These suits, however, have been time consuming, costly to pursue, and difficult to prove. Because no other case has acknowledgeda common law right to protection from ETS as of the late 1990s, and becauseof the uncertainties involved in statutory or regulatory claims, Vallone argued that workers' compensation laws may, if amended, provide a more efficientremedy for ETS complaints. Yet Shimp had not been overruled as of thattime; its precedent establishing a common law right to protection from ETS,therefore, remained.
Impact
Shimp v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Company recognized the harm done toworkers exposed to ETS and established the common law right of employees tobe protected from this substance while on the job. Since then, workers have also sought damages against employers through a variety of means. In addition,states and municipalities as well as private employers are increasingly taking action to protect workers from this type of pollution and to protect themselves from possible liability. Though no federal legislation as of the late 1990s banned ETS in private workplaces, federal recommendations strongly urgedemployers to ban on-the-job smoking, and ETS had been prohibited in federalworkplaces. Shimp, therefore, set an important precedent for employees' rights to be protected from secondhand smoke.
Related Cases
Smoking Banned In Public Places
Cigarette smoking can be hazardous to one's health, but breathing the smoke of others can also be dangerous. At least two percent of lung cancer deaths are believed to be caused by passive smoking. Additionally, exposure to second-hand smoke can result in an increase in heart rate and blood pressure, and perilous levels of carbon monoxide in the blood.
Second-hand smoke is even more harmful to babies and children. Babies with parents that smoke are treated at hospitals twice as often for illnesses such as bronchitis and pneumonia.
Opponents of public smoking bans claim the health hazards to non-smokers arenot nearly as conclusive as believed. For example, nearly 80% of the studiesof lung cancer among non-smokers married to smokers do not demonstrate, through statistically significant information, that they are at greater risk. Thearguments for banning smoking in the work place usually rely on the health risk to non-smokers. Yet in research of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace, more than 85% do not show a statistically significant increase in thedanger of lung cancer to non-smokers.
Sources
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and Smoking In Public Places, http:/www.thetma.org.uk/ETS.htm
Donna M. Shimp
Defendant
New Jersey Bell Telephone Company
Plaintiff's Claim
An injunction should be issued requiring her employer, New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, to enact a ban on smoking in the workplace.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff
Charles A. Sweeney
Chief Defense Lawyer
Stuart B. Finifter
Judge
Philip A. Gruccio (writing for the court)
Place
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division
Date of Decision
20 December 1976
Decision
An injunction can be issued requiring New Jersey Bell Telephone Company to ban workplace smoking.
Significance
The ruling found that a worker's common law right to a safe working environment is threatened by the presence of second-hand or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), and that an employee with a medical sensitivity to ETS has the common law right to require an employer to ban smoking in the workplace.
A Major Public Health Concern
Tobacco smoke has been established as a carcinogen and is also associated with emphysema, heart disease, stroke, and other conditions. The health risks incurred by smokers could also affect those who are exposed to tobacco smoke involuntarily. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that second-hand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in nonsmokers, and the U.S. Labor Department reported that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has killed many more workers than have workplace homicides. Despite concrete evidence on the dangers of ETS, workers exposed to this substance have not hada single clear means through which to pursue remedies for injuries.
Both state and federal courts have grappled with the issue of how best to address the problem of ETS related health problems in the workplace. Plaintiffshave tried several different causes of action under either statutory or regulatory provisions. These include claims under the Americans with DisabilitiesAct and claims under workers' compensation laws, in which parties sought monetary awards from employers after becoming ill or injured on the job. The decision in Shimp v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, in which the plaintiff sought injunctive relief instead of damages, is notable in that it was not based on statutory law but on principles of common law. Common law is a body of law, inherited from England, in which courts resolve disputes between parties without regard to any particular statute, or written law. Decisions are based upon precedent (prior decisions) and essentially balance the rights of the parties before the court on the basis of fundamental concepts of equityand common sense.
A Common Law Right
Donna M. Shimp, a secretary at New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, successfully sought injunctive relief against her employer through the common law argument. Shimp was employed in an area in which other employees were permitted tosmoke at their desks. She contended that inhalation of the resulting ETS washarmful to her health, and therefore her employer, by condoning the presenceof ETS, allowed an unsafe working condition to exist. She brought an action in New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, seeking an injunction, or court order, that would require New Jersey Bell Telephone to ban workplace smoking.
Shimp presented affidavits from attending physicians documenting that she wasallergic to cigarette smoke and suffered such symptoms as severe throat irritation, nasal irritation, nosebleeds, eye irritation which resulted in corneal abrasion and corneal erosion, headaches, nausea, and vomiting. Shimp was forced to leave the workplace on numerous occasions because of these symptoms.These symptoms abated, however, whenever Shimp remained in an area free of smoke. Shimp attempted to resolve the problem of workplace ETS through her union's collective bargaining grievance procedures, by which it was agreed that the employer would install an exhaust fan in the work area. But because otherworkers complained of the resulting draft, the fan was often turned off and did not solve the problem. Thus Shimp brought her action in New Jersey Superior Court.
Justice Gruccio decided the issue based on the briefs submitted by the lawyers representing the plaintiff and the defendant. Because the case was a matterof first impression--it involved a legal issue not yet ruled upon in that jurisdiction--Justice Gruccio relied on principles of common law. He consideredthree issues: whether the Occupation Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and workers' compensation regulations on workplace safety allowed a worker to seek injunctive relief through the courts; whether the plaintiff's complaint was basedon a legitimate medical condition; and whether the complaint was causally related to the presence of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace.
Citing rulings from McDonald v. Standard Oil Co., Burns v. Delawareand Atlantic Tel. And Tel. Co., Clayton v. Ainsworth, Davis v.N.J. Zinc Co., and Canonica v. Celanese Corp. of America, JusticeGruccio found that "It is clearly the law in this state that an employee hasa right to work in a safe environment." The court stressed that this is a duty imposed both by common law and by the OSHA of 1970. Justice Gruccio emphasized that OSHA's general duty clause imposes on the employer "a duty to eliminate all foreseeable and preventable hazards" and that this clause "recognizes concurrent state power to act either legislatively or judicially under thecommon law with regard to occupational safety." In addition, the court wrotethat nothing in the Workmen's Compensation Act, which regulated procedures for seeking monetary damages after an injury, prohibited workers from pursuinginjunctive relief against occupational hazards. Therefore, Justice Gruccio determined that the plaintiff's suit against her employer was a proper cause ofaction and that the court had authority to resolve the matter.
Clear and Overwhelming Evidence
The court found that the affidavits from the plaintiff's attending physiciansconfirmed her medical sensitivity to tobacco smoke. Furthermore, Justice Gruccio cited evidence from the 1970 Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act and from the 1975 HEW report, The Health Consequences of Smoking, documentingthe toxic nature of cigarette smoke. He further noted that the surgeon general's 1972 report of the same title demonstrated that the presence of cigarette smoke increased the carbon monoxide level and added tar, nicotine, and theoxides of nitrogen to the air. Affidavits from several other health professionals, including researchers and specialists in the fields of cancer, cardiovascular disease, allergies, and industrial and occupational medicine, furtherdocumented the adverse effects of ETS. "The evidence is clear and overwhelming," wrote Justice Gruccio. "Cigarette smoke . . . [creates] a health hazard not merely to the smoker but to all those around her who must rely on the sameair supply." Taking judicial notice of the toxic nature of cigarette smoke,he ordered New Jersey Bell Telephone Company "to provide safe working conditions for plaintiff by restricting the smoking of employees to the non-work area presently used as a lunchroom."
In his analysis, Justice Gruccio stressed two important distinctions betweenShimp's claim and that brought in Canonico v. Celanese Corp. of America (1951). In that case, the plaintiff sought damages after contracting an illness allegedly resulting from the inhalation of cellulose acetate dust in theworkplace. The trial judge dismissed the case, and this decision was upheldon appeal. The dust inhaled by the plaintiff, the courts found, was the necessary by-product of the manufacturing process in which he was employed--in other words, the product could not be produced without creating the dust. The courts therefore ruled that breathing these particles should be considered a risk assumed knowingly by the employee as an "ordinary incident to his employment." Furthermore, the trial judge found no convincing evidence that the cellulose acetate dust was toxic or that the plaintiff's illness was caused by breathing this substance. In Shimp, however, the court found that cigarette smoke was not related in any way to the work done at New Jersey Bell Telephone Company and "cannot be regarded as an occupational hazard which plaintiff has voluntarily assumed in pursuing a career as a secretary." Second, the health hazards of secondary smoke have been well documented. Thus, the court determined that "employees' right to a safe working environment makes it clearthat smoking must be forbidden in the work area."
Balancing Rights and Legislative Response
In ordering the injunction against New Jersey Bell Telephone, the court acknowledged that the rights of nonsmokers in the workplace must be balanced against the rights of smokers, but stated firmly that "The right of an individualto risk his or her own health does not include the right to jeopardize the health of those who must remain around him or her in order to properly performthe duties of their jobs." Justice Gruccio noted that employees who wished tosmoke during their own time "should have a reasonably accessible area in which to smoke." He reasoned that limiting smoking to non-work areas would impose no unreasonable hardship upon the employer.
Shimp established the toxic effect of ETS on nonsmokers and ruled thatthe substance should be included among those that an employer should reasonably foresee as a preventable work hazard. This set the stage for workers to bring claims against employers. Responding to employee complaints, and anticipating possible liability, many private employers began to regulate on-the-jobsmoking. But smokers also asserted their rights, making statutory regulationof workplace smoking a passionately contested issue. As of 1993, according to a Valparaiso University Law Review article by Melissa A. Vallone, only 14 states had enacted legislation against ETS, and none of these banned on-the-job smoking entirely. In Your Rights in the Workplace, Barbara Kate Repa noted that by 1996 a majority of states had imposed some regulationsprotecting workers from ETS, but that no federal law directly prohibited workplace smoking. A small handful of cities prohibit workplace smoking outright.On the other hand, about half of the states have laws making it illegal to discriminate against employees who smoke during their free time. "So the ongoing legal battle in most workplaces," Repa concluded, "boils down to a question of what is more important: one person's right to preserve health by avoiding co-workers' tobacco smoke, or another's unfettered right to smoke."
The federal government's first major action against ETS came in 1988, when itbanned smoking aboard domestic airline flights of less than two hours' duration. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended "that every company have a smoking policy that effectively protects nonsmokers from involuntaryexposure to tobacco smoke" but as of the late 1990s, this had not been madeinto law. New OSHA regulations proposed in 1994 would require all non-industrial businesses to devise and implement plans to protect workers from indoor air pollution, including tobacco smoke. But strong opposition erupted when those proposals were made public. In 1997, President Clinton issued an executiveorder banning smoking in federal workplaces, but the issue of smoking in private workplaces had not yet been resolved by federal law.
The Path Ahead
Though the Shimp case established an employer's common law duty to protect employees from ETS, analysts have found that the cause of action in thiscase may be questionable. According to Vallone, as of 1993, Shimp wasthe only case to grant injunctive relief to a plaintiff under the common lawtheory. In a Washington Supreme Court case, McCarthy v. Department of Social & Health Services (1988), only four justices--a minority of the court--agreed that plaintiff could claim a common law right to protection fromETS. In a subsequent New Jersey case, Smith v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey (1983), the same court that had ruled on Shimp suggested that the Shimp decision required an employer to enact "Draconian measures" against smoking employees and that it imposed prohibitions that"are too sweeping and go well beyond what is necessary to ensure a safe working environment." Thus, Vallone concluded, "the only court that granted reliefto an ETS victim under this [common law] theory later questioned the validity of the decision."
Other workers, though, later won damages (i.e., money settlements) against employers because of the harm resulting from ETS. And liability was broadened to include tobacco companies themselves as well as employers. In a 1991 classaction suit, for example, airline flight attendants in the United States wona $300 million settlement against the tobacco industry for injuries caused bybreathing ETS on planes. These suits, however, have been time consuming, costly to pursue, and difficult to prove. Because no other case has acknowledgeda common law right to protection from ETS as of the late 1990s, and becauseof the uncertainties involved in statutory or regulatory claims, Vallone argued that workers' compensation laws may, if amended, provide a more efficientremedy for ETS complaints. Yet Shimp had not been overruled as of thattime; its precedent establishing a common law right to protection from ETS,therefore, remained.
Impact
Shimp v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Company recognized the harm done toworkers exposed to ETS and established the common law right of employees tobe protected from this substance while on the job. Since then, workers have also sought damages against employers through a variety of means. In addition,states and municipalities as well as private employers are increasingly taking action to protect workers from this type of pollution and to protect themselves from possible liability. Though no federal legislation as of the late 1990s banned ETS in private workplaces, federal recommendations strongly urgedemployers to ban on-the-job smoking, and ETS had been prohibited in federalworkplaces. Shimp, therefore, set an important precedent for employees' rights to be protected from secondhand smoke.
Related Cases
- Canonico v. Celanese Corp. of America, 11 N.J. Super. 445 App. Div. (1951).
- Smith v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, No. 6-3617-81E N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. (1983).
- McCarthy v. Department of Social & Health Services, 759 P.2d 351 Wash. (1988).
Smoking Banned In Public Places
Cigarette smoking can be hazardous to one's health, but breathing the smoke of others can also be dangerous. At least two percent of lung cancer deaths are believed to be caused by passive smoking. Additionally, exposure to second-hand smoke can result in an increase in heart rate and blood pressure, and perilous levels of carbon monoxide in the blood.
Second-hand smoke is even more harmful to babies and children. Babies with parents that smoke are treated at hospitals twice as often for illnesses such as bronchitis and pneumonia.
Opponents of public smoking bans claim the health hazards to non-smokers arenot nearly as conclusive as believed. For example, nearly 80% of the studiesof lung cancer among non-smokers married to smokers do not demonstrate, through statistically significant information, that they are at greater risk. Thearguments for banning smoking in the work place usually rely on the health risk to non-smokers. Yet in research of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace, more than 85% do not show a statistically significant increase in thedanger of lung cancer to non-smokers.
Sources
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and Smoking In Public Places, http:/www.thetma.org.uk/ETS.htm
User Comments Add a comment…