OLYMPIA, Wash. (Legal Newsline) - Allegations of animal cruelty can't create a claim for public nuisance, the Washington Supreme Court has ruled in a lawsuit brought by the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
The ALDF alleges Olympic Game Farm, a drive-through wildlife exhibit in Sequim has violated the state's wildlife laws and both state and federal endangered species protection laws. Add in animal cruelty allegations, and the ALDF argued OGF is a "public nuisance."
But the state Supreme Court found Aug. 17 that nothing in previous case law or the statutes allegedly being violated would pave the way for a nuisance claim.
"OGF argues that ALDF has no valid legal claim for public nuisance because ALDF has not demonstrated that any wildlife statutes have been violated," the decision says.
"Even if ALDF could prove such a violation, the legislature has not named such violations a nuisance nor has ALDF demonstrated that a property interference or threat to public health and safety has occurred."
The decision answers a certified question from a Washington federal court judge hearing ALDF's case, which was filed in 2018. The suit alleged harm and harassment of gay wolves, lions, tigers, bears and Canada lynx.
ALDF asked that a business violating wildlife protection and animal cruelty laws be declared a public nuisance, arguing the term extends to offenses of public decency and morals. If there needed to be a violation of property rights to be a public nuisance, ALDF argued wildlife is the property of the people of the state.
"Our cases have established the rule applicable to nuisance claims, limiting claims to property infringement or threats to health and safety," the decision says.
"The framing of the certified question recognizes that rule. ALDF essentially asks us to expand the scope of nuisance law. The cases, however, not only establish when and under what circumstances claims exist but are express in limiting claims to those circumstances.
"The cases are, in a way, self-limiting, as is the statutory framework. Where the statutory framework and case law do not support a claim, none exists."