In lateral support cases, a principal objection to allowing prospective damages is that the excavator is prohibited from justifying damages by restoring the lateral support.  According to caselaw, a party suffering from an injury in the nature of a continuing nuisance may recover damages as often as s/he brings action.

In Island Lime Co. v. Seattle, 122 Wash. 632 (Wash. 1922), the defendant alleged that the trial court applied wrong measure of damages by stating that the statute of limitations barred the landowner’s action, and that the matters involved had already been adjudicated. The court held that the landowner could not recover for any period prior to thirty days before it filed its claim with the city clerk.  The City regraded the street on which the land fronted in 1911, removing its lateral support, which ultimately caused the destruction of the building that was on the land.  Damages was recovered in 1912 action by the landowner against the City, and in 1916, commenced the subject action. Damages based on the rental value were awarded by the trial Court.  It also stated that the landowner’s recovery in 1912 did not bar it from seeking redress for damages sustained since the former action was tried because it was entitled to bring successive actions for a continuing damage. Upon this finding, the trial court was asked to modify the judgment.