Lord v. Pierce County
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtQuinn-Brintnall, J.
¶1 Since its adoption in 1896, the common enemy doctrine has long stood for a simple proposition: landowners may dispose of unwanted surface waters in any way they see fit, without liability for resulting damage to neighboring properties. Although Washington courts have created exceptions to this common law doctrine, we have never altered or addressed its basic function as a shield to liability. Petitioner Kim Lord now challenges this understanding of the common enemy doctrine.
¶2 Lord contends that in addition to shielding a property owner from liability, the doctrine also allows a landowner…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- United States v. CausbySupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. BosleyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- Cairo & Vincennes R. R. v. StevensIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Cass v. DicksWashington Supreme Court · 1896
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.