Legal Question in Real Estate Law in Washington

Re: Nuisance noise violation

In Washington, both public and private nuisance actions are governed by statute. Washington statutes generally describe actionable nuisances, and also separately and somewhat more specifically define the term "nuisance."

The elements of a nuisance action under Washington's statutes are essentially the same as under the common law: a tortious or unlawful act that substantially interferes with the claimant's use and enjoyment of property. The standard applied to evaluate the degree of interference with use and enjoyment is that of a person of normal and ordinary sensibilities.

Washington case law provides that the "fundamental inquiry" in a nuisance case is whether the land use complained of "can be considered as reasonable in relation to all the facts and surrounding circumstances." This test encompasses not only the reasonableness of the defendant's land use, but also whether the impact on the plaintiff is substantial. The traditional common law defense of "coming to the nuisance" does not act as a complete defense in Washington. Instead, the relative timing of the competing uses is one of the "surrounding circumstances" considered along with the character of the neighborhood and the nature of the plaintiff's, as well as the defendant's, use.

A lawful activity cannot be a nuisance per se, but it can become a nuisance in fact if carried out in an unreasonable manner or location. An activity that is expressly authorized by law, however, cannot be declared a nuisance. The statute establishing this principle has been read as a declaration that certain activities are exempt from classification as nuisances. However, an action that fails to comply with the terms of the statutory authorization may still be deemed a nuisance.

In addition to an unlawful or tortious activity, to establish a nuisance claim there must also be an injury to the use of the affected property or to health and safety. Injuries compensable under a nuisance theory may involve personal discomfort as well as property damage. The degree of discomfort an activity must inflict before it may be declared a nuisance is not precisely defined, although it must be substantial. In odor cases, for example, the court will consider whether, in addition to detecting odor, the plaintiff exhibits objective symptoms, such as nausea, headaches, nervousness or insomnia.

Feel free to give me a call to discuss this matter further.

Re: Nuisance noise violation

Basically, your recourse is to try and obtain an injunction prohibiting the continued activity. To do so you have to meet the requirements Mr. King discussed. You may also be entitled to monetary damages if you can show harm that you suffered as a result of the activity, and that harm is not abated when the activity stopped.

I hope this helps. If you have further questions, please feel free to call or write.