Someone sent me this video link from the InstituteforLegalReform.com. I don’t know much about this “goose lawsuit” except what the video details, so there could be more facts that aren’t presented in the video. Nonetheless, it appears to be an interesting case and issue regarding human-wildlife conflict—especially since some wildlife, such as Canada geese, can expand under favorable conditions created by humans (or conversely, expanding development can result in habitat degradation, loss, and fragmentation, and conflict with conservation laws and policies, which protect species susceptible to anthropogenic pressures). I would have been very surprised if a reasonable jury found these folks responsible and then awarded damages. Furthermore, I’m not sure how the case even got to trial, unless there was a question of fact regarding whether the geese were being fed or purposely attracted by the storeowners.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
I am the attorney that represented Ms. Webster in this lawsuit. The store owners, in the video, leave out some important facts.
1) Testimony in depositions and at trial was that they fed the geese for months the first year they nested
2) They had ideas on how to safely keep the geese from returning the next year, but failed to follow through on those plans in a reasonable manner. Ms. Webster was injured that next year.
3) The jury deliberated for many hours before reaching a verdict.
There was nothing frivilous about the suit, and I would be happy to provide any other details you would like.
Thanks for the supplemental information. That’s why I noted, “I’m not sure how the case even got to trial, unless there was a question of fact regarding whether the geese were being fed or purposely attracted by the storeowners.”