## Facts

- Homeowners owned and occupied a residence lot in a residential area of Seattle.
- A neighboring landowner opened and operated a small private tuberculosis sanitarium in a cottage on his nearby lot, separated from plaintiffs’ property by an alley.
- The sanitarium housed several tuberculosis patients and had capacity for approximately ten patients.
- The trial court found tuberculosis transmission risk was minimal beyond close proximity when sanitary precautions were used, and found the sanitarium was operated with due care and posed no demonstrated physical danger to nearby residents.
- The trial court also found tuberculosis was widely feared by the public and that a tuberculosis hospital near residences detracted from surrounding property values.
- Evidence indicated the sanitarium’s presence in the residential neighborhood would substantially reduce nearby market values, and plaintiffs alleged fear and diminished enjoyment of their home.

## Issues

1. Whether a tuberculosis sanitarium, not a nuisance per se and operated with due care, can be a nuisance in fact in a residential neighborhood based on reasonable fear and resulting substantial depreciation of neighboring property values.
2. Whether equitable relief was appropriate to enjoin continued operation of the sanitarium at that location.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the defendant and remanded.
- The court held the sanitarium was not a nuisance per se, but was a nuisance in fact under the circumstances.
- The court directed entry of an injunction restraining maintenance and operation of the sanitarium at that location.

## Legal Principles

- A lawful use is not insulated from nuisance liability; whether it is a nuisance may depend on locality and surrounding circumstances.
- A use may be deemed a nuisance in fact where, in a residential district, it materially interferes with neighbors’ comfort and enjoyment and appreciably diminishes market value.
- Reasonable and substantial public apprehension of danger—grounded in the nature of the condition and its social reality—may be considered in determining nuisance, even if strict medical evidence suggests low physical risk under careful operation.
- Equity may enjoin a continuing nuisance where the harm to use, enjoyment, and property value is ongoing and not adequately remedied by damages.

## Conclusion

The court required injunctive relief because, in a residential neighborhood, the sanitarium’s presence created a substantial, reasonable fear and measurable market stigma that materially impaired neighboring homeowners’ enjoyment and property value, making it a nuisance in fact despite careful operation and public utility.


Everett v. Paschall, 111 P. 879 (Wash. 1910)