I regularly see civil cases where, when one person is harmed, either directly or indirectly by another (for example, builders putting asbestos in a house, lead in pipes, etc), they are able to bring a tort civil case against the person causing the harm, to sue for damages:
This is because, chemically, asbestos causes cancer, and lead, poisoning.
There can even be lawsuits against offensive odours:
Putting the two types of cases together, both a chemical harm (EG causing cancer) and an odour, it strikes me smoking meets both criterion. Second hand smoke has clearly been documented as harmful, and certainly does smell:
Which does mean the harm is foreseeable by a smoker who continues to smoke.
And whilst I'm aware tobacco companies have been sued for selling tobacco, they're not the ones actually burning it.
Which raises my question, could non-smokers, who either get directly or indirectly harmed by smoke, successfully sue smokers? Why isn't this a more common occurrence given the harm of smoke to others?
(Country is unimportant, but I'd be interested to see if it's possible in western and European countries.)