Hamilton v. King County

5 Citing cases

  1. Lahar v. Barnes

    91 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 1958)   Cited 5 times

    Specific consideration of the sufficiency of the second count of the declaration is not required at this time. In support of his claim that he is entitled to recover damages under the facts set forth in his declaration, plaintiff cites Hamilton v. King County, 195 Wn. 84 ( 79 P.2d 697), and Bell v. Gray-Robinson Construction Company, 265 Wis. 652 ( 62 N.W.2d 390). In each of said cases the right of the plaintiff to recover damages sustained by the owner of mink, due to excessive noise resulting from acts of defendant during the whelping season, was recognized. It does not appear that in either case the sufficiency of the plaintiff's pleading was raised.

  2. Brutsche v. City of Kent

    164 Wn. 2d 664 (Wash. 2008)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the use of a battering ram to gain entry to execute a search warrant did not constitute a taking

    These sections are not relevant, however, because they pertain to forcible entry to arrest or apprehend a person and the circumstances under which one entering the land for these reasons may make a forcible entry of a dwelling. For example, in Hamilton v. King County, 195 Wash. 84, 92-93, 79 P.2d 697 (1938), this court applied the doctrine of trespass ab initio when holding that a county was liable for loss of a property owner's season's mink crop when it entered the property without authority and constructed a drainage ditch, and the resulting disturbance in close proximity to the minks' mating pens led to a reduction in mink offspring. ¶27 Under the modern view set out in Restatement ( Second) of Torts § 214, the trespass ab initio doctrine is not only abrogated, it is also unnecessary.

  3. Foster v. Preston Mill Co.

    44 Wn. 2d 440 (Wash. 1954)   Cited 14 times

    It may very well be that, under the facts of a particular case, recovery for damages of this kind may be sustained upon some theory other than that of absolute liability. In Hamilton v. King County, 195 Wn. 84, 79 P.2d 697, for example, recovery of such damages was sanctioned on the ground that defendant had trespassed upon plaintiff's land in doing the blasting which caused the disturbance. Likewise, if the facts warrant, it is possible that such damages may be predicated upon a violation of RCW 70.74.250 [ cf. Rem. Supp. 1941, § 5440-25], requiring notice to be given at certain times of the year when blasting is to be undertaken within fifteen hundred feet of any fur farm or commercial hatchery, except in certain cases.

  4. Covey v. Western Tank Lines

    36 Wn. 2d 381 (Wash. 1950)   Cited 22 times
    Finding application of res ipsa loquitur proper when the bolts holding the wheel to the vehicle sheared, causing the wheel to dislodge

    See, also, Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Barker, 110 Ind. App. 648, 40 N.E.2d 348. Respondent places great reliance upon our decision in Hamilton v. King County, 195 Wn. 84, 79 P.2d 697. In that case, a mink farmer sought damages for the loss sustained due to the noise and disturbance caused by King county in digging a ditch close to the mink pens during the whelping season.

  5. Spoelstra v. Drainage Dist 6 Snohomish Cty

    120 Wn. App. 1057 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)

    Citing Hamilton v. King County, 195 Wn. 84, 79 P.2d 697 (1938), the Spoelstras argue that their claims are not based on the maintenance of flood control devices, but rather arise "out of drainage or lack of it," and that therefore RCW 86.12.037 does not apply. In Hamilton, a mink rancher filed suit after the county constructed a large drainage ditch across the rancher's property during the whelping season, causing a severe loss to the mink population.