WPI 380.05 Nuisance—Burden of Proof—No Affirmative Defense
6A WAPRAC WPI 380.05Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 380.05 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Part XXI. Nuisance
Chapter 380. Nuisance
WPI 380.05 Nuisance—Burden of Proof—No Affirmative Defense
(Name of plaintiff)has the burden of proving each of the following propositions with respect to the claim of nuisance:
(1) That(name of defendant)[acted unlawfully] [failed to perform a duty]; and
(2) That the [unlawful act] [failure to perform a duty]:
[annoyed, injured, or endangered the comfort, repose, health, or safety of others;] [or]
[offended decency;] [or]
[unlawfully interfered with, obstructed or tended to obstruct, or rendered dangerous for passage, any lake, navigable river, bay, stream, canal, or basin;] [or]
[unlawfully interfered with, obstructed or tended to obstruct, or rendered dangerous for passage any public park, square, street, or highway;] [or]
[in any way rendered other persons insecure in life, or in the use of property;] [and]
(3) That(name of defendant)'s [act] [failure to perform a duty] was a proximate cause of [injury to(name of plaintiff)] [and] [or] [damage to(name of plaintiff)'s property].
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for(name of plaintiff)on the nuisance claim. On the other hand, if any of these propositions has not been proved, your verdict should be for(name of defendant)on the nuisance claim.
NOTE ON USE
Use with WPI 380.01 (Nuisance in General—Definition). For cases using a modified definition of nuisance under WPI 380.01.01 (Nuisance—Example of Modified Definition—Interference with Use of Street or Highway), modify the instruction along the lines discussed in the Comment below.
COMMENT
The form of this instruction comes from WPI 21.02 (Burden of Proof on the Issues—No Affirmative Defense).
The instruction incorporates the language of RCW 7.48.120 and the ruling of the Washington Supreme Court in Tiegs v. Watts, 135 Wn.2d 1, 954 P.2d 877 (1998).
The elements in the instruction are drafted to track the definition of nuisance that the jurors receive in WPI 380.01 (Nuisance in General—Definition), which is based on the statutory definition contained in RCW 7.48.120. In some cases, however, the jurors will be instructed with a modified definition of nuisance, based on sources of law other than RCW 7.48.120, such as WPI 380.01.01 (Nuisance—Example of Modified Definition—Interference with Use of Street or Highway). For these cases, the instruction above will need to be revised to track the modified definition.
[Current as of February 2021.]
Westlaw. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |