Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)

Citation
Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)
Parent Document
Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
1990-11-01

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text

802 chars
In any event, we are convinced that the trial court properly dismissed Owners' nuisance claim. In Washington, a "negligence claim presented in the garb of nuisance" need not be considered apart from the negligence claim. Hostetler v. Ward, 41 Wn. App. 343, 360, 704 P.2d 1193 (1985), review denied, 106 Wn.2d 1004 (1986). See also Re v. Tenney, 56 Wn. App. 394, 398 n.3, 783 P.2d 632 (1989). In those situations where the alleged nuisance is the result of the defendant's alleged negligent conduct, rules of negligence are applied. Hostetler, at 360. Cf. Albin v. National Bank of Commerce, 60 Wn.2d 745, 753, 375 P.2d 487 (1962) (trial court properly refused to give a proposed instruction *528on nuisance which was based on the same omission to perform a duty which allegedly constituted negligence).