Comments on: Neighbors sue parents of 8 year old who feeds crows

By: Ted F

Ted F — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:56:10 +0000

I don’t understand “allow for the possibility.” The allegations are true or not true. Of course, if the allegations are a load of hooey, and 51 neighbors merely want to harass an 8-year-old when they petitioned city government to do something, I oppose the lawsuit. Anyone who read this site from 2003-2010 knows that I’m skeptical of legal filings, and the last five years has only made me more so. But I’d wager pretty good money that this isn’t a contingent-fee lawsuit, and it’s very rare for someone to pay lawyers an hourly rate over the difference between an eight-ounce feeding and a four-ounce feeding of crows. Occam’s Razor says the neighbors feel legitimately aggrieved.

By: MattS

MattS — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:25:46 +0000

In reply to Ted F.

“Seems like a legitimate use of nuisance law to me.”

Only if you assume that the plaintiffs are telling the truth. Does it still seem legitimate if you allow for the possibility that the plaintiffs are significantly overstating both the damage and the extent of the feeding?

By: Ted F

Ted F — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:44:19 +0000

Seems like a legitimate use of nuisance law to me. The neighbors tried a petition first. They’re willing to allow feeding to continue, just not so much feeding that it ruins their property value. I’m siding with the plaintiffs, based on the Daily Mail story, whether or not there are employees involved in the feeding.

By: MattS

MattS — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:25:40 +0000

In reply to DensityDuck. It could also be an outright fabrication on the part of plaintiffs filing a nuisance suit for malicious reasons.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 23:05:39 +0000

In reply to Walter Olson.

It could also be a pet sitter hired to fill the bird feeders while the family isn’t present.

Which, on the one hand, yeah it’s a bit bloody-minded strict to describe them as “employees hired to help with feeding”. But on the other hand, it’s not *wrong* to describe them that way. These crows aren’t house pets, they’re wild animals; presumably they could find their own damn peanuts for a couple of days.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:07:50 +0000

When I saw that bit, I figured most likely the plaintiff’s lawyer was being clever about framing some instance or instances in which a housekeeper or babysitter had been observed helping Gabi. There is no evidence from the rest of the piece to indicate that the family would have any motivation to sink the cost of an employee’s hiring into their daughter’s hobby.

By: catherine

catherine — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:57:46 +0000

The KIRO article mentioned that the family has hired employees to help with the feeding. If that is accurate, this has gone beyond a cute child filling a bird feeder.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:38:23 +0000

Props to KIRO for using the proper term for a group of crows 😀

By: MattS

MattS — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:15:27 +0000

In reply to Richard. Only if you take the plaintiffs allegations as to how much feeding is happening at face value.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:38:11 +0000

The fact that the neighbors’ request includes injunctive relief limiting the amount of food she leaves out (I think a quarter pound per day) rather than seeking a total ban on the feeding suggests that reason may well be on their side.