Tucker v. Hayford, 118 Wash. App. 246 (2003)

Citation: Tucker v. Hayford, 118 Wash. App. 246 (2003)
Parent Document: Tucker v. Hayford, 118 Wash. App. 246 (2003)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2003-09-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4935965/tucker-v-hayford/ ↗

Full Text

846 chars

Quiet Enjoyment. No Washington case directly addresses the impact of drinking water on one’s quiet enjoyment of his home. Washington does, however, recognize the relationship of water and habitability. In State ex rel. Andersen v. Superior Court, the court held that without water, a property is uninhabitable. State ex rel. Andersen v. Superior Court, 119 Wash. 406, 407-08, 205 P. 1051 (1922). And in Mitchell v. Straith, the court held that a water system that used an “unusual” approach, but did not affect the water quality, did not render the property uninhabitable. Mitchell v. Straith, 40 Wn. App. 405, 412, 698 P.2d 609 (1985). And in Mathes v. Adams, as the Tuckers point out, the Montana court ultimately held that unsafe drinking water renders a rental property uninhabitable. Mathes v. Adams, 254 Mont. 347, 353, 838 P.2d 390 (1992).

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text