Opinion ID: 2564768
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Doran v. City of Seattle

Text: ¶ 11 In Doran v. City of Seattle, 24 Wash. 182, 64 P. 230 (1901), this court rejected the city's contention that all continuing nuisance [4] damages, past and prospective, must be recovered in a single action and that the statute of limitations runs from the inception of the nuisance. Frank Doran was a property owner whose house, he claimed, suffered damage as a result of a negligently constructed bulkhead. The bulkhead, built by the city of Seattle, pressed against his house. Doran brought suit for nuisance in September 1897, when the statute of limitations for such a claim was two years. The city argued the statute began to run when the bulkhead first damaged Doran's property and that his claim was thus time barred. ¶ 12 We disagreed. We held, [i]t would be inequitable and not in accordance with good morals to estop a person from obtaining his rights or damages for injuries which might eventually become burdensome, because he was not litigious enough to plunge into a law suit over a trifling matter. Doran, 24 Wash. at 188-89, 64 P. 230. The court permitted Doran to sue for the damages caused by the nuisance suffered during the two years before he brought the lawsuit. ¶ 13 We also rejected Seattle's argument that future damages must be recovered in one action. We disapproved of awarding prospective damages in a continuing nuisance claim. [T]he wrong doer might, by the payment of prospective damages, actually become permanently possessed of real property which, under the theory of the law, can only be taken . . . in relation to eminent domain. Id. at 188, 64 P. 230. This result was later endorsed by Island Lime Co. v. City of Seattle, 122 Wash. 632, 634, 211 P. 285 (1922), and Davis v. City of Seattle, 134 Wash. 1, 6-7, 235 P. 4 (1925), where we added that an award of prospective damages denied the defendant the right to mitigate damages by abating the tortious encroachment. ¶ 14 None of these cases suggest damages should not be awarded for a nuisance (or trespass) proved to have already happened. A rejection of damages for predicted future harms is not a rejection of an award for proven damages.