In a unanimous decision, the Washington Supreme Court held that breaches of the state’s animal protection laws cannot substantiate a claim for public nuisance. Eight members of the court subscribed to the majority opinion, with Chief Justice Steven C. González penning a concurring opinion. The ruling was given in response to a question certified by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The ruling can be found here.
The court stressed that, in order for the public’s right to use to be infringed, the public must implicitly have had use of the resource. It was emphasized that the Animal Legal Defense Fund had not demonstrated, either through case law or legislative intent, that Washington had made stipulations for the public to have a right to use wildlife, or that it had a right to access the private property of a zoo.
Reflecting on the impact of this ruling, it appears that whether violation of animal protection statutes qualifies as a public nuisance will be determined by the nature of the public’s previous use rights over related resources. This decision could lead to important chatter among legal professionals evaluating environmental protection statutes and laws regulating public nuisance.