Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.48
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.48.150 (2026)

Private nuisance defined

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every nuisance not included in the definition of RCW 7.48.130 is private.
[Code 1881 s 1237; 1875 p 79 s 3; RRS s 9915.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Grundy v. Thurston Cnty., 117 P.3d 1089 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grundy v. Thurston Cnty., 117 P.3d 1089 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 3× “RCW 7.48.150. ¶ 15 An actionable nuisance is "whatever is injurious to health or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to essentially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of the life and property.”
Grundy v. Thurston Cnty., 155 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 3× “RCW 7.48.150. ¶15 An actionable nuisance is “whatever is injurious to health or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to essentially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of the life and property.”
Miotke v. City of Spokane, 678 P.2d 803 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.48.150. Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.”
Hostetler v. Ward, 704 P.2d 1193 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “130, 12 and "private," RCW 7.48.150. 13 Generally, an action may be maintained by "any person whose property is injuriously affected or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance.”
Womack v. Von Rardon, 135 P.3d 542 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 7.48.150. ¶ 13 To be actionable, the nuisance must be "`injurious to health or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to essentially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of the life and property.”
Womack v. Von Rardon, 133 Wash. App. 254 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 7.48.150. f 13 To be actionable, the nuisance must be “ ‘injurious to health or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to essentially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of the life and property.”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Olympic Game Farm, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “" Wash. Rev. Code § 7.48.130 ; cf. Wash. Rev.”
Tiegs v. Boise Cascade Corp., 922 P.2d 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “” RCW 7.48.150. Remedies include abatement and/or damages.”
Grundy v. Brack Fam. Trust, 67 P.3d 500 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 7.48.150. In defense, the Bracks assert the common enemy doctrine.”
Grundy v. Brack Fam. Trust, 67 P.3d 500 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 7.48.150. In defense, the Bracks assert the common enemy doctrine.”
Smith v. BNSF Ry. Co. (E.D. Wash. 2020). “120 and RCW 7.48.150, (2) Defendant negligently and 16 recklessly caused the Fish Lake Fire in violation of RCW 4.”
Hunters Capital LLC v. City of Seattle (W.D. Wash. 2023). “2d at 7 (citing RCW 7.48.150). Plaintiffs allege that 12 the City “directly participated” in the creation of a nuisance by blocking access to streets 13 and sidewalks in the Capitol Hill neighborhood and maintaining a series of unreasonable 14 conditions such as “excessive…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.