Court: Washington Supreme Court; November 26, 1969; Washington; State Supreme Court
The Washington Supreme Court addressed a writ of certiorari concerning a Superior Court order that temporarily enjoined the New American Community, Inc. from conducting the Sky River Rock Festival and Lighter Than Air Fair in Thurston County. The injunction also mandated that no license be issued for the festival until a $25,000 security deposit was made with the court clerk. However, it was stipulated that this deposit was not made and would not be made, leading the Supreme Court to conclude that the injunction was invalid.
The court emphasized that for a temporary injunction to be granted at the request of private parties, posting a bond is required by statute (RCW 7.40.080). The court referenced previous case law, affirming that failure to comply with this statutory requirement renders any injunction void. Since no security was filed, the court found there was no valid injunction, thereby nullifying the Superior Court's order prohibiting the issuance of a festival license. The court noted that the county's licensing requirements for public events had been in place since 1949 and that all applications for such licenses must be directed to the county auditor.
Upon application and payment of a $25 license fee for each day of operation, the auditor is mandated to issue a license for circuses, carnivals, or public expositions in Thurston County, which must be displayed prominently on the premises. The ordinance is characterized as clear and mandatory, imposing a ministerial duty on the auditor without discretion. The superior court's order linked to an injunction required the auditor to issue the license upon receipt of the fee, as the injunction did not take effect. The court clarified that it did not address the validity of the festival or approve any legal violations. The ruling emphasized that private parties must post a bond to secure an injunction, which was not contested in this case. The majority opinion determined that the licensing officer must issue a license when statutory conditions are met and no valid injunction exists.
Dissenting, Justice Hale expressed concerns about public safety regarding the festival's potential for creating a public nuisance, agreeing with the trial court's ruling against the festival. Hale contended that the injunction should be considered permanent, negating the bond requirement and asserting that a public officer cannot be directed to license an activity deemed a public nuisance. The anticipated influx of attendees for the festival, featuring continuous music performances, raised concerns about safety due to its proximity to a railroad right-of-way.
Rock music has gained immense popularity, particularly among youth, with notable recognition from scholars. Dr. Leroy Ostransky's 1969 analysis emphasizes its widespread appeal, highlighting its musical structure, which includes simple tonal melodies, standard song forms, and harmonies reminiscent of Protestant hymns and English folk music. The genre is characterized by straightforward rhythms and themes centered around love, protest, and youth issues, often amplified to high volumes, a defining feature of rock music that enhances audience participation.
The trial court found evidence of public and private nuisance related to the Sky River Rock Festival, particularly concerning safety risks posed by large crowds near a busy railroad. The court maintained that the record was inadequate for fully determining the nature of the nuisances but clearly established the danger associated with the festival's proximity to high-speed train traffic. The producers of the festival, New American Community, Inc. and John Chambless, did not contest the railroad's claims of danger or the trial court's findings regarding public nuisance. Their legal filings lacked factual rebuttals to the allegations raised and were primarily focused on procedural claims about the trial court's judgment. Notably, the festival organizers agreed to pay a rental fee for the use of the fields, indicating an acknowledgment of the event's logistical implications.
The site in question features a double-track main line used by three transcontinental railroads, running north and south on an embankment through a 360-acre area. This embankment offers spectators an advantageous viewpoint of an open-air stage. A 10-foot passageway beneath the embankment is designated for festival entrance and exit, with ticket stands planned at the east entrance. The railroad embankment acts as a barrier, directing crowds through the passageway to the stage area. Additional site features include designated areas for food and novelty concessions, a three-day camping area, free camping, and parking.
John H. Hertog, Superintendent of the Northern Pacific Railway Company's Tacoma Division, submitted an affidavit in support of an injunction, detailing his familiarity with the operations of the three railroads sharing the tracks at the festival site. He noted the steep 27-foot embankment and its impracticality for travel and viewing. The affidavit indicates a lack of preparations to prevent festival attendees from accessing the railroad tracks, relying instead on security personnel to manage safety. Hertog stated that at least 120 trained security guards would be necessary, costing a minimum of $5,000 for the festival duration. Alternatively, implementing a reduced train speed of 5 mph through the area would hinder rail traffic and commerce, causing significant financial losses, as approximately 40 trains operate daily on these tracks.
Trains traveling up to 75 miles per hour pose significant dangers at the proposed festival site, where frequent two-way train traffic occurs. The noise from the trains may distract attendees, particularly inexperienced individuals, leading to a lack of awareness regarding additional trains approaching from adjacent tracks. The potential risks are exacerbated by the expected large, unsupervised crowd of 25,000 people, especially if some attendees are impaired by alcohol or drugs, increasing danger for both them and sober individuals.
Testimony confirmed that an average of 40 trains—both passenger and freight—would operate daily at high speeds through the site, raising concerns about public safety. The festival is characterized as a nuisance that endangers public health and safety, as defined by RCW 7.48.120. Acknowledging the risks and potential legal liabilities, the railroad decided to implement safety measures, including slowing trains and maintaining security to keep people off the tracks.
Despite the legal implications of posting a bond, the railroad prioritized public safety over legal victory. It has the right to seek an injunction against what it perceives as a public nuisance, demonstrating that it would suffer distinct harm compared to the general public, as reinforced by case law (RCW 7.48.210; Bales v. Tacoma; Harris v. Skirving). While conflicting opinions may exist about the festival's classification as a nuisance, there is consensus regarding the significant danger posed by a large crowd near active train lines.
The bond requirement for the injunction should have been vacated because the injunction was final and permanent, as opposed to temporary. The statute (RCW 7.40.080) mandates a bond to protect the enjoined party from damages due to wrongful injunctions. Once an injunction becomes permanent, requiring a bond from a private party who has effectively abated a public nuisance is unreasonable. In this case, plaintiffs filed suit against the Thurston County Auditor and Commissioners, claiming the festival would create both public and private nuisances, seeking to prevent the issuance of permits for the event. The festival's promoters, New American Community, Inc. and John Chambless, intervened, claiming that the permit issuance was a ministerial duty and not subject to discretion. They did not contest the allegations of nuisance during the hearings, and the court found no request for additional evidence. The facts regarding the festival's impact, such as the proximity of railroad tracks and the frequency of train traffic, were acknowledged in court. The evidence indicated that the festival posed a public nuisance due to the imminent risk of injury and property damage from the trains.
No evidence was presented to counter the existence of a public nuisance related to the railroad main line, leading to the conclusion that the injunction was both final and permanent. The requirement for a bond should have been vacated, as a permanent injunction negates the necessity for a permit, which grants special privileges that should not be conferred for activities deemed a public nuisance. The dissenting opinion, authored by Judge Donworth, reviews a writ of certiorari concerning a Superior Court order that granted a temporary injunction and denied a writ of mandate in a case initiated by residents of Tenino against the county commissioners and auditor. The plaintiffs' complaint, filed August 22, 1969, claimed that the proposed "rock festival," expected to attract over 50,000 attendees, would lead to disruptive behavior, posing dangers to the safety and comfort of residents. Specific allegations included the anticipated lewd conduct, excessive drinking, and potential livestock appropriation from neighboring properties. The complaint highlighted a second plaintiff's concern about the loss of cattle and a third plaintiff's property concerns due to the proposed festival activities.
Allegations in the third cause of action include claims of inadequate housing for patrons of a proposed rock festival, leading to potential property damage to the plaintiff’s house and barn. Concerns are raised about the presence of dry, inflammable grass and hay on the premises, which could pose a fire risk to the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiffs argue that an emergency exists, necessitating a restraining order to prevent the issuance of permits until a hearing is held. Similar allegations regarding prior rock festivals suggest that the new event would constitute a nuisance.
Myrtle Mann, a nearby property owner, claims that patrons may engage in drug use and exhibit lewd behavior, potentially trespassing and damaging her property. She expresses concerns about noise disturbing her health and safety, asserting that the proposed event would be a nuisance.
James Nelson, another nearby property owner, raises issues regarding his livestock’s safety, fearing that festival patrons may disturb or harm them. He also highlights the fire hazard posed by dry grass on his property, claiming it creates an unreasonable risk to his enjoyment of the property.
The plaintiffs request a court order declaring the festival a nuisance and preventing the issuance of a license. A temporary restraining order was granted, halting the license issuance until a hearing. Defendants were ordered to appear on August 26, 1969. On August 25, the defendants sought to include New American Community, Inc. and its director, John Chambless, as parties in the case. A show cause order was issued for them to appear at the hearing. During the hearing, all parties agreed to recognize the corporation and its director as intervenors. Subsequently, New American Community and Chambless filed a cross-claim for a writ of mandamus to compel the county auditor to issue a festival license, citing previous attempts to apply for the license.
On August 26, the corporation and its director filed a motion to quash an order to show cause, citing three reasons: lack of grounds for a temporary injunction, lack of standing by the county commissioners and auditor to seek injunctive relief, and the availability of an adequate legal remedy for the defendants. On the same day, the Trans West Company was allowed to intervene as a plaintiff, owning timber on property belonging to plaintiff Myrtle Mann. The Northern Pacific Railway Company also intervened, noting that its main line tracks run through the festival area, situated 27 feet above the festival terrain. The hearing lasted two days, concluding on August 27, 1969, with the trial court granting a temporary injunction against the New American Community, Inc. and its representatives from hosting the festival, contingent upon a $25,000 injunction bond, which was not filed. The court dismissed the county commissioners and auditor from the case, finding that the interests of the plaintiffs and intervenors were common, while the first intervenor's interests were deemed adverse. The court noted that the festival was proposed near Tenino, with an expected attendance of 25,000 people each day from August 30 to September 1, 1969. Concerns were raised about potential nuisances and public safety due to prior festival patterns leading to criminal acts. The court concluded that the expected influx of attendees would unreasonably inconvenience local residents and lacked adequate planning to protect the interests of property owners, thus determining that the festival constituted both a private and public nuisance.
On August 28, 1969, New American Community, Inc. and John Chambless petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review a trial court order they claimed was erroneous and exceeded jurisdiction, with no adequate legal remedy available. The Chief Justice ordered the issuance of the writ, directing Judge Frank Baker to provide a complete transcript of the case by 9:00 a.m. on August 29, 1969. Due to time constraints, the trial court could not comply fully, and although pleadings were filed, no statement of facts was certified, violating ROA I-57(g)(4). While 15 witnesses testified, their testimonies remained unknown. The Supreme Court convened at 10 a.m. on August 29, 1969, where counsel presented arguments. The court determined that the lack of a posted bond rendered a temporary injunction ineffective and ruled that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a writ of mandate for a festival license, instructing the county auditor to issue the license immediately. A dissenting opinion emerged, arguing that the county auditor was not a party to the action, the trial court found the festival to be a nuisance, and the absence of a certified statement of facts prevented the court from reviewing factual issues, requiring acceptance of the trial court's findings as valid.
The court is bound by the determination that the proposed rock festival constituted both a public and private nuisance. It asserts that the trial court's dismissal of the county auditor should have been affirmed. The rock festival is a new event, and there is a lack of higher court rulings specifically on the nuisance status of such gatherings. However, there is substantial case law regarding public dance halls as nuisances, including a detailed annotation in Barrett v. Lopez, which outlines that a defendant's possession of a local license does not negate a nuisance claim. The court cites two prior cases where nuisances were upheld despite legislative approval of the activities involved. In the dissenting opinion, it is emphasized that the trial court's findings are to be accepted as true, reinforcing the view that the rock festival is a nuisance. The dissenting justice opposes the majority's decision to instruct the county auditor to issue a license, arguing that the court should not support the continuation of a nuisance. The dissent concludes with procedural notes regarding the filing of records for reviewing the case.
