Court Opinion

ID: 9793534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:49:28.607796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:56.887235
License: Public Domain

Grady and Donworth, JJ.
(dissenting)—Our objection to the findings of fact made by the trial court is that they are founded upon the thought that the hauling of garbage from the city of Bremerton to the designated destination, burning that which is inflammable and depositing the residue and other garbage in a gully or canyon to be covered with earth will necessarily constitute a nuisance. Such a result is too anticipatory to justify an injunction. We cannot conclude from the evidence in the record that the evil results anticipated by the court are so probable, threatening and likely to ensue that the people residing in Bremerton should be barred in advance from having garbage disposed of without the contractor being given an opportunity to comply with health regulations and to burn and make the fill in *205such a manner as to protect the persons living in the vicinity and their property from the creation and maintenance of a nuisance.
The courts do not have much difficulty in the exercise of their injunctive powers when any activity is in fact a nuisance, nor when in the very nature of things such a result must inevitably follow; but where such activity may or may not be a nuisance according to the way in which it will be carried on, they should proceed with the utmost caution. It must be borne in mind that the disposal of garbage is a necessity from a health and sanitation standpoint and if done in such a manner as not to constitute a nuisance is a lawful activity.
When the health authorities granted a permit to haul garbage from the city and dispose of it by binning and by means of a sanitary fill, it must be assumed they believed such activity could be carried on and the objective attained in such a manner as to be lawful; also that they expect to supervise the activity and curtail any part of it that cannot be carried on in a lawful manner. Some people may be sensitive over the passage of vehicles transporting garbage through their neighborhood, or not like the sight of smoke arising from burning, but there necessarily has to be a balancing of conveniences and a recognition of the necessities of others and that ideal situations cannot exist under all circumstances.
We are not convinced that the plan of "garbage disposal proposed cannot be carried out without creating a nuisance. It may be that some of the acts, such as burning, cannot be done without becoming offensive to such an extent as to constitute a nuisance, but if the garbage can be dumped into a gully or canyon and promptly covered with earth so that it does not become offensive, then there is no room for interference by the court by way of prohibitive injunction.
The judgment should be reversed with directions to dismiss the action without prejudice to the institution of a similar suit if and when the activities of appellants in the *206disposal of garbage as contemplated should constitute a public or private nuisance.
Hill and Hamley, JJ., concur with Grady and Don worth, JJ.