Plaintiffs Kim and Kai Chauncey claimed that neighbors Lauren Pulido and Richard Pulido, as well as the Pulidos’ co-tenants and guests, had the habit of continuously smoking on their patio next to the Chaunceys’ condominium in Trabuco Canyon. The Chaunceys claimed the smokers also smoked in the adjoining garage and on the adjoining sidewalks in front of their home. Thus, the Chaunceys claimed that the resulting secondhand smoke came through their windows and a sliding-glass door, causing smoke to be constantly present in their condo. As a result, they made repeated complaints to the homeowners association, Bella Palermo Homeowner Association; the management company, TSG Independent Management; its owner, Tina Gustave; the tenants, the Pulidos; and the Pulidos’ landlord, Matthew Perez. However, the Chaunceys claimed that this did not stop the problem, causing them to eventually move out of the condo they owned because of the smoke and rent another home. Additionally, they claimed that the secondhand smoke aggravated their young son’s asthma. Mr. and Mrs. Chauncey, as well as their sons, Asher and Talan, sued the Bella Palermo Homeowners Association, TSG Independent Management and Gustave for negligence and breach of contract. They also sued the Pulidos and Perez for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Initially, Roberta Pulido was also sued, but she was not at trial. In addition, Gustave was dismissed from the case prior to trial. The Chaunceys contended that the Pulidos and their visitors intentionally or negligently continued to smoke, despite their complaints to them about secondhand smoke. Plaintiffs’ counsel also contended that the association’s rules required the homeowners association to abate the second hand smoke from the Chaunceys’ condo. In particular, counsel noted that Section 9.03 of the association’s rules, the “nuisance” clause, stated that “no noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be permitted upon any part of the covered property, nor shall anything be done thereon which shall in any way interfere with the quiet enjoyment of each of the owners of his respective residence.” Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the homeowners association and the management company failed to take steps to curtail the smoking, and that Perez did nothing to curtail the activities of his tenants, the Pulidos, and their friends and guests. The homeowners association claimed that it did curtail smoking in some areas, including the swimming pool and tot lot, but that the Chaunceys never directly complained to the association or the management company about the neighbors’ smoking on their patio. The Pulidos claimed that they had a right to smoke on their own patio, and disputed the Chaunceys’ claims that the smoke traveled near their unit. They also claimed they were not smoking where the Chaunceys claimed they were and that as an accommodation, they smoked 20 to 90 feet away. The Pulidos further claimed that after the Chaunceys asked them to stop smoking near their condo, they stopped and, instead, moved across or down the street. Counsel for the Pulidos noted that the Pulidos’ patio was 20 feet away from the Chaunceys’ patio and argued that the Chaunceys could have taken steps to avoid any alleged exposure. Perez claimed that the lease prohibited smoking in his unit and that there was no evidence that there was any smoking in the unit. However, he claimed he still he spoke to his tenant, Richard Pulido, about it and advised him that the patio was considered part of the unit, so there should be no smoking there. Perez further claimed that in response, Mr. Pulido stated that he would insure that smokers in his family smoked elsewhere. Perez claimed that thereafter, he did not receive any other complaints about smoking on the patio or near the unit. In response, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that evidence produced at trial established that the tot lot and pool areas were already non-smoking before the tenants moved in, and that the Chaunceys had complained at numerous homeowners association meetings of problems with the tenants smoking around the plaintiffs’ unit, as established by the written minutes of those meetings., The Chaunceys claimed that they suffered emotional distress from the incident. They also claimed that the secondhand smoke aggravated Talan Chauncey’s asthma, as evidenced by Talan’s treating doctor, who testified that there were continuous problems involving Talan’s asthma. Thus, Mr. and Mrs. Chauncey sought recovery of damages for Talan’s unreimbursed medical expenses, as well as for their moving expenses and various expenditures incurred to clean and to attempt to reduce the secondhand smoke in their unit. Defense counsel contended that medical records showed that Talan did not visit a doctor for an acute asthma exacerbation until he got pneumonia, which was one year after the Pulidos moved into the neighboring unit. Counsel for the Pulidos contended that the plaintiffs presented no evidence that secondhand smoke would cause harm at a distance of 20 feet and over. As such, counsel contended that the thresholds for harm established that the distances the Pulidos were smoking were too far away to cause harm. In addition, counsel asserted that medical studies showed that smoking at a distance of more than 6 feet resulted in negligible particulates, while a distance of about 2 meters would show only trace amounts. Perez’s expert pulmonologist testified that Talan’s asthma was not exacerbated by exposure to secondhand smoke, in that his symptoms followed a typical course. The expert further testified that Talan’s first acute episode of symptoms was nearly one year after the Pulidos moved in. Perez’s expert toxicologist testified about how the Chaunceys never tested the air in their unit during the relevant period and about how such testing would have been necessary to evaluate whether there was any actual exposure to secondhand smoke in their unit.