Skokie, Illinois: “A woman who says she was attacked by a squirrel after walking out of the Tiffany and Co. jewelry store at the Old Orchard Shopping Center in 2004 filed suit against the shopping center Monday, saying its employees ‘encouraged’ the squirrel’s presence by feeding it.” In her suit, Marcy Meckler says the Westfield Corp., which manages the shopping center, “was negligent in, among other things, failing ‘to warn the plaintiff of the squirrel’s presence'”. (Sun-Times/CBS2Chicago.com, Aug. 14).
Posts Tagged ‘animals’
“Student Sues Illinois University After Deer Attack”
“This used to be Montana…”
Animal rights activists on the march against owners and breeders of dogs and other animals in Bozeman, Montana, and Albuquerque, New Mexico (Stephen Bodio’s Querencia, May 24).
If I could sue like the animals
Canadian photographer Gregory Colbert is starting an outfit he calls the Animal Copyright Foundation whose intent is to collect royalty payments on behalf of animal species as compensation for the use in advertising of, for instance, the Budweiser Clydesdales, Target’s spotted dog, the Hartford’s stag, and other furred, finned or feathered creatures, the proceeds to be distributed to conservation causes that benefit animals. In all fairness, media accounts describe Colbert as seeking not obligatory rules requiring payment of the 1 percent royalties when a photo or video is used, but rather a “seal of approval” system in which advertisers vie for consumer favor by voluntarily pledging the set-aside. One almost hesitates to publicize the idea, however, for fear it will percolate in the law schools and emerge after a few years as an asserted new legal entitlement, as “animal standing” has done. (WSJ law blog, Mar. 16; Tim Nudd, AdFreak, Mar. 10; Lunch Over IP, Feb. 25).
Update: garden-center bird attack
Alton, Ill.: U.S. District Judge William Stiehl has thrown out Rhonda Nichols’ lawsuit (Apr. 14, 2005) claiming that she was attacked by a bird at a Lowe’s home improvement center, and that Lowe’s should have warned her about the hazard. Judge Stiehl ruled “that a ‘reasonable plaintiff’ either would have noticed the birds or understood that contact with them was possible in any outdoor area with plants.” (Jim Suhr, “Woman’s suit against Lowe’s for bird attack won’t fly”, AP/Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 5). Courthouse News has the opinion (PDF).
“B.C. cat owner sues over deadly coyote attack”
Canada: “A Vancouver woman is suing the city and the B.C. government for allegedly failing to keep the streets safe after her pet cat was killed by two coyotes….In a statement of claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, [Judith] Webster says she’s suffered and continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress and/or adjustment disorder, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of past and future earnings.” (CanWest/Vancouver Province/Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, Jan. 4).
The bear’s death warrant? Public liability
We’ve reported before (Mar. 18, 2004) on how, after court decisions in Arizona eroded the state’s longstanding immunity from being sued over the actions of wild animals, lawyers began obtaining large verdicts from public managers over humans’ harmful encounters with wildlife — with the result that managers began moving to a “when in doubt, take it doubt” policy of slaughtering wild creatures that might pose even a remote threat to people. The continuing results of the policy came in for some public discussion last month after a bear wandered into a residential area near Rumsey Park in Payson, Ariz. and was euthanized by Arizona Game and Fish personnel:
[Ranger Cathe] Descheemaker said that the two Game and Fish officials were no doubt following procedure, and that bears are routinely destroyed ever since the agency was sued when a bear mauled a 16-year-old girl in 1996 on Mt. Lemmon near Tucson.
“Since Game and Fish lost that lawsuit, they do not relocate any bears,” she said. “The fact that bear was in town was its death warrant.”
(Jim Keyworth, “Bear found near Rumsey Park destroyed”, Payson Roundup, Sept. 6). For another set of complications that can arise from public liability for wildlife — namely, pressure to close off the general public’s access to wilderness — see Mar. 29.
Lawsuit Filed to Prevent Killing of Pigs on Channel Islands
A lawsuit was filed on Tuesday to halt the killing of feral pigs on Santa Cruz Island off of the California coast. The pigs are causing problems with the island’s ecosystem. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs contend that the Channel Islands National Park officials have “rushed to judgment” in deciding to kill the pigs. (Mercury News, “Lawsuit seeks to stop eradication of pigs on Santa Cruz Island,” Jul. 6, 2005).
“Paw laws”
Woman awarded $45,000 after dog kills cat
Seattle: “A woman who sued a neighbor after his dog mauled her cat to death has been awarded more than $45,000. Retired teacher Paula Roemer’s 12-year-old cat, Yofi, was attacked in her back yard in February 2004 by a chow belonging to her neighbor, Wallace Gray. The dog had repeatedly escaped in the past, according to the lawsuit.” (“Woman Gets $45K for Cat Killed by Dog”, AP/Las Vegas Sun, May 9). The award included $30,000 for the personal value of the cat — tying a record for a pet, according to her lawyer — plus $15,000 for emotional distress; Ms. Roemer “was so traumatized that she began having sleep disturbances and panic attacks, sank into depression and began smoking heavily, she wrote in a sworn declaration.” (Jessica Blanchard, “Woman awarded $45,000 in cat death”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 9). More coverage: Seattle Times, KOMO-TV. Meanwhile, a timely op-ed spells out why damage awards reflecting pets’ sentimental value, by scaring away veterinarians and other caretakers, could lead to needless animal deaths. (Emily Laird, “See Spot Sue”, New York Times, May 8). A similar case has been made many times in this space: see Mar. 15 (letter to the editor) and links from there.