Grundy v. Thurston County

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court considered whether a private nuisance claim arising from seawater redirected by a neighbor's raised seawall was barred by the common enemy doctrine. The court held that storm-driven seawater is not surface water for purposes of that doctrine, reversed the Court of Appeals, and remanded for trial on the private nuisance claim. The court did not reach the public nuisance issue because the legality of the county's shoreline exemption was not properly before it.

Holdings

1. The common enemy doctrine does not apply to seawater because storm-driven waves in Puget Sound remain part of a definite and identifiable body of water and therefore do not constitute surface water under Washington law.
2. Summary judgment dismissing Grundy's private nuisance claim was improper because the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the raised seawall substantially and unreasonably interfered with her use and enjoyment of her property.
3. The court did not reach the public nuisance issue because the legality of Thurston County's administrative shoreline exemption had not been decided by the trial court and was not properly before the appellate court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Appeals properly dismissed or declined to reach Grundy's public nuisance claims based on the alleged illegality of the Bracks' permits.
2. Whether the common enemy doctrine applies to storm-driven seawater and bars Grundy's private nuisance claim.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper when evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the raised seawall substantially and unreasonably interfered with Grundy's use and enjoyment of her property.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded