Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Dorsey v. Speelman
Citations: 459 P.2d 416; 1 Wash. App. 85; 1969 Wash. App. LEXIS 282Docket: 113-40671-1
Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; October 15, 1969; Washington; State Appellate Court
Defendants, who leased an 80-acre dairy farm for five years, were found liable for damages due to waste committed on the property after the lease expired. Plaintiffs sought treble damages under RCW 64.12.020, which allows for such damages if a tenant commits waste. The trial judge determined that the defendants both 'committed' and 'permitted' waste and awarded treble damages for five items categorized as commissive waste. The defendants contested the treble damages award, arguing that punitive damages are disfavored and that statutes allowing them must be strictly interpreted. They referenced the case DeLano v. Tennent, emphasizing that exemplary damages should only be recoverable when expressly permitted by statute. The court noted that the statute requires waste to be willful and that the 1943 amendment intended to allow recovery for damages when a tenant commits voluntary destructive acts. Waste is defined as the improper use or neglect of property resulting in significant injury, with two types recognized: voluntary (commissive) waste, involving deliberate actions, and permissive waste, involving negligence. The defendants argued that the evidence did not meet the strict standard required for the trial judge's finding of 'committed' waste. The trial judge awarded treble damages for extensive damage to a small cabin occupied by the defendants, determining that the defendants committed numerous acts of waste. The damages included $1,366.00 for destruction of the cabin's interior, with an additional award of $4,008.00 for the willful nature of the waste. Minimal storm-related damage to the roof was acknowledged separately, estimated at $75.00. Although direct evidence identifying the perpetrators of the destruction was lacking, circumstantial evidence suggested that the defendants were either directly involved or aware of the acts. The judge dismissed the notion that third parties could have caused such extensive damage unnoticed, emphasizing that the defendants lived nearby and would have likely heard or seen the destruction occurring. The judge characterized the damage as intentional and voluntary, citing the improbability of it being caused by a windstorm. The concept of 'commissive' waste was clarified, indicating that involvement could occur indirectly through agents or accomplices. The judge's findings were upheld as supported by substantial evidence, leading to affirmation of the judgment.