outrageously, the response from the landlord was to suggest that if i can't deal with the smoke then i should move.

that's the literal definition of negligence, in context.

"if you don't like the mold on the ceiling, you can always move."
"if you don't like the asbestos in the living room, you can always move."

it's the same thing, legally.

you see this frequently with legal illiterates: i'm just getting some, like, nineteenth century contract theory bullshit. libertarianism seems to be the basic starting point of ignorance, in this culture.

so, i'm going to have to write the board an essay, and this won't get mailed until tomorrow. the basic argument is negligence under the health regulations, and liability for breach of the enjoyment covenant.

but, i got a mailing address, at least. that wasn't obvious.

the truth is that they're actually kind of walking into a trap; it's not like i set the trap, but , if i did, they'd have walked right into it. they've given me everything i need to make the argument for negligence...

and, i need to reiterate: i like tort law. i think more of the law should be organized around tort law principles. tort reform, to me, means expanding the principles of tort law to further destroy contract theory. it's the criminal law that i don't like, and it's classical liberalism that pisses me off...