|
|
CPT President Mark Spivak is an experienced expert witness for either plaintiff or defense purposes in both civil and criminal
matters. Mr. Spivak’s experience includes researching, investigating, writing convincing affidavits, and testifying on behalf
of clients while working closely in conjunction with the client’s attorney.
How An Expert In Animal Behavior and Training Can Assist An Attorney
CIVIL
- Dog bite injuries
- Homeowner-victim claims regarding person or property
- Landlord-tenant issues
- Seller-purchaser contract issues
- Service performance issues
- Negligence issues
- Questions of provocation
CRIMINAL
- Zoning violations
- (habitats, breed specific ordinances)
- Animal control violations
- (barking, dog at large, nuisance complaints)
- (scratching, biting, quarantine)
- (vicious animal hearings)
- Misdemeanors and felonies
Examples of How CPT Expert Witness Services Have Helped Clients
- While running across an area in dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant as to whether it was community property or
private property, the Plaintiff client’s minor child was severely bitten on the leg by the Defendant’s chained German Shepherd
Mix. Resultantly, the child required several surgical procedures. The Defendant’s lawyers hired by his insurance company
refused to provide a reasonable settlement offer. They argued that the dog was properly confined within the laws of the
county and municipality, that the child had trespassed onto the Defendant’s property, that the Defendant had posted appropriate
“Beware of Dog” signs along the front of the property, and that the Defendant had no prior knowledge of the dog’s aggressive
behavior, since there were never any formal charges or convictions against the Defendant for violating dangerous dog statutes.
Due to opposing counsel’s recalcitrance, Plaintiff attorneys contracted with CPT. Unfortunately, a first-hand behavioral
evaluation of the dog was impossible, since the Defendant had the dog euthanized several months after the incident.
Nevertheless, by utilizing the case files and transcripts combined with a thorough review of pertinent statutory law, case
precedent, statistical data, and animal behavior research, a CPT expert analysis and concomitant affidavit was able to convincingly
support the client’s/Plaintiff’s arguments that: 1) Based on two acknowledged unreported bites, the Defendant had prior
knowledge (scienter) of the dog’s unprovoked aggressive behavior, 2) The Defendant was aware of the dog’s known propensity
to behave aggressively toward neighbor children, 3) The Defendant’s failed to exercise due diligence to protect the public,
4) Chaining the dog increased the probability that the dog would act upon its known aggressive propensities, 5) The Defendant’s
actions were legally negligent- since information was readily available in the public domain that chaining increased the
probability of aggressive behavior- similarly, information was available in the public domain that many counties and municipalities
had concomitantly statutorily prohibited chaining due to the risk chaining presented to the public, 6) The chained dog potentially
posed an attractive nuisance to the young child, 7) There is information in the public domain that German Shepherds and
German Shepherd Mixes, in comparison to the average domestic dog breed, have a higher probability of acting aggressively
and a higher probability of inflicting severe or lethal bites, 8) Lack of proper care on the part of the Defendant could
have contributed to the dog’s aggressive propensities, 9) The Defendant was aware that neighbor children frequently used
the disputed common area, 10) The Defendant should have been aware that the length of the dog’s chain allowed the dog to
have contact with children who frequently walked or ran on the disputed area, 11) Shrubbery between the undisputed private
property of the defendant and the disputed common area obstructed the small child’s view of the dog and created a hidden
trap, 12) “Beware of Dog” signage was not conspicuously placed where it was visible to a child using the common area, 13)
Georgia civil case precedent has determined that a young child is considered unaware of the concept of trespass, 14) The
shrubbery may have heightened the dog’s territorial aggressive behavior, 15) The child running may have heightened the dog’s
barrier frustration, territoriality, and/or predatory aggressive behavior, 16) The Defendant failed to reduce exposure to
known potential risks by properly confining the dog, 17) The Defendant failed to reduce risks by commencing any form of
obedience or behavioral training, and 18) The size, depth, and severity of the bite did not correspond to the level of threat
rationally posed by the child and was the maladaptive act of an unstable, poorly managed dog. Consequently, the previously
intractable insurance company attorneys agreed to substantially increase their settlement offer. Shortly thereafter, the
case settled favorably for our client.
- CPT provided expert trial testimony in a case involving a dispute between a purchaser and breeder. The Plaintiff purchaser
believed the dog’s aggressive behavior frequently exhibited toward several members of the family amidst food or territory
and post commands or reprimands constituted a violation of warranties present in the breeder-authored puppy sales contract.
CPT expert testimony corroborated the Plaintiff’s observations of the dog, technically categorized the dog’s behavior within
the formal classifications of “dominant aggressive, possessive aggressive, and fear aggressive,” and classified the dog’s
behavior as “abnormal,” especially for a puppy less than six months of age.
- CPT has consulted in a civil case involving police brutality. The Gwinnett County police believed the Plaintiff robbed
a convenience store, then stole an automobile to aid in his escape. The police pursued the stolen automobile, whereby they
stated they visually observed the Plaintiff abandon the automobile alongside a road and flee by foot into a wooded area.
The police strategically positioned backup officers around the perimeter of the wooded area. A Gwinnett County police dog
then tracked the suspect Plaintiff from the point of the abandoned car into a specific thicket within the wooded area. Once
the Plaintiff’s position was located, the police dog handler verbally informed the hidden Plaintiff that he was under arrest
and that he was to move into view. When the Plaintiff refused the police dog handler’s requests, the handler announced three
times that he would “send” his dog and that the dog “will bite.” The handler released the dog, whereby the dog bit the Plaintiff
on the arm. Subsequently, the handler and an accompanying officer attempted to subdue and handcuff the Plaintiff. In the
process, the Plaintiff again fled on foot. The handler again announced that he would “send” his dog and that the dog “will
bite.” The officer released the dog. The dog bit the fleeing Plaintiff in the posterior thigh, causing severe injury, including
deep lacerations and tearing of the hamstring muscle. The Plaintiff’s attorney’s requested that CPT analyze case files,
depositions, Gwinnett County regulations regarding handling and usage of police dogs, and the training records of the particular
police dog and handler to determine whether the handler violated standard protocols or procedures or whether training records
indicated that the dog was either not trained to specification or exhibited abnormally aggressive behavior. A research report
and verbal summation to the Plaintiff’s attorneys concluded that the officer followed standard Gwinnett County protocols
and that the dog acted in accordance with guidelines. Therefore, the case was weak regarding improper handling or training
of the dog. However, further analysis concluded that the Gwinnett County police handler protocols were more aggressive than
those utilized in surrounding counties. Thus, moving forward, the strategy of the case should not focus on the officer or
dog acting improperly per the standards established by the Gwinnett County police department, as was originally the goal
of the Plaintiff’s attorney. Instead, the strategy of the case should focus on the legal possibility that the standards
of the police department allowed the use of unwarranted “excessive force” that posed unnecessary and unreasonable risk of
injury to the Plaintiff and violated the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, which was an issue better left to an expert
in criminal justice or constitutional law than an expert in animal behavior and training.
- Client was arrested and charged with felony aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. The officer accused the client
of intentionally sending his dog to attack. Though there was no contact and no injuries, the officer alleged the client
used commands that prompted the dog to chase her off the property. Expert observational and video analysis and a resultant
affidavit proved incontrovertibly that the dog was not trained in protection, was not innately aggressive or inordinately
territorial, and did not understand the protection commands stated in the officer’s complaint. To strengthen the case we
provided a video of a contrasting dog trained in protection. The charges were dismissed.
- Client was arrested and charged with felony cruelty to children. Her child was removed from her home and placed in the
custody of DFACS. The school counselor and police alleged injuries to the child arose from physical abuse. The child and
mother attested that injuries arose from rough play with the family dog. Medical reports were inconclusive as to the origin
of the wounds, but categorized them as scratches and excoriated lesions (not bruises or hematomas). Expert evaluation of
the client dog, along with expert produced photographs and video, demonstrated an untrained, out of control animal, who
due to breed tendencies and lack of attention often jumped, pawed and scratched. The animal had long, untrimmed nails that
had scratched through sheetrock in a basement enclosure. Moreover, photographs of the scratches closely corresponded to
the direction and dimension of the wound sites documented in the hospital medical report created at the urging of DFACS.
Expert analysis and a summary affidavit supported the defense's position and raised more than reasonable doubt that injuries
to the child were originated by the family dog- not a human, as initially alleged by the state. CPT's research and resultant
affidavit were essential in having the charges dismissed and the child returned home to his parents.
- CPT recently worked on a civil slip and fall lawsuit where the plaintiff client was injured while attending a dog training
class at a major big box retailer. The client’s resultant orthopedic injuries required several surgeries. A CPT expert provided
an affidavit and a deposition on behalf of the client. The CPT affidavit and deposition incorporated the defendants’ answers
to interrogatories, scientific research, knowledge of educational psychology, knowledge of animal behavior, knowledge of
accepted practices and standards, and expansive experience teaching similar training classes to attempt to prove the defendant’s
negligence and resultant liability in relation to the incapacitating injuries suffered by the Plaintiff.
- A CPT expert testified at a criminal trial where the defendant client was accused in Carrol County of felony cruelty to
animals. The CPT expert provided verbal and visual testimony regarding the victim dog’s physical and verbal communication
and overall behavior within the context of the pertinent events. The CPT testimony helped the jury determine that the animal
was aggressive and that the client’s actions were legally valid given the dog’s behavior, the circumstances, and the wording
and intent of the pertinent statute, whereby the client was found not guilty of all charges.
- CPT provided an affidavit on behalf of an Atlanta Falcon player accused of felony cruelty to animals. The player’s fiance
owned a dog that had exhibited aggressive behavior to family members and strangers and in the process inflicted several
bites. Out of concern for the safety of his young child, himself, and the community, the client considered euthanizing the
animal. Veterinary professionals concurred that euthanasia was a viable option given the dog’s history and the probability
of training success. Nevertheless, the player, in an attempt to keep the pet alive, contracted with a local trainer recommended
by his veterinarian. The trainer board trained the animal and provided follow-up consulting. However, the dog remained frequently
aggressive, which frightened the client and placed the family and community at risk. Still, the player continued attempting
to modify the animal’s behavior by implementing the techniques espoused by the trainer. Unfortunately, on one occasion,
when the player implemented the suggested techniques, the dog was subsequently injured and later died. Gwinnett County then
charged the player with felony cruelty to animals. After researching all pertinent facts, CPT submitted an affidavit denoting
that the technique advocated by the trainer was a legitimate technique within the dog training profession, that the technique
was archaic and now rarely applied by educated professional trainers, that the technique was inappropriate for reducing
the aggression of the subject dog, that the technique would likely exacerbate the aggression of the subject dog, and that
the technique may cause the subject dog to act aggressively with less salient warning than communicated previous to the
implementation of the technique. Felony cruelty to animals requires intent and malice. The CPT affidavit described the technique
and how even proper implementation of the technique may accidentally result in severe injury or death. The affidavit also
emphasized the client’s efforts to salvage the dog’s life by contracting with the trainer and taking the time, finances,
and risk to implement continued training strategies, rather than simply having his veterinarian euthanize the animal, such
that the evidence demonstrated that the client’s actions sharply contrasted with any allegations or legal requirements of
intent, malice or forethought. Moreover, to eliminate potential allegations of criminal negligence, the affidavit communicated
that the trainer had superior knowledge of the potential for injury or death inherent to the recommended training technique,
that the trainer did not impart such information to the client, that the trainer was recommended by a state licensed veterinarian
(the same state that was ironically now accusing the client of a crime), that the client precisely followed the trainer’s
instruction, and that given the client’s lack of a dog training education and his rationale in trusting the trainer and
the techniques advocated by the trainer, considering the circumstances and information at hand, the client’s actions were
prudent and reasonable and not criminal or negligent in nature. Consequently, the Gwinnett County District Attorney’s office
dismissed all charges prior to the date of trial.
- Dekalb County and a client’s condominium association accused the client of owning a "pit bull" in violation of zoning
ordinances and restrictive covenants. Expert evaluation of the dog and a summary affidavit demonstrated that he was not
a pit bull per the definitions authored within the pertinent County statute nor the definitions of the condominium bylaws.
The client was allowed to keep her dog.
- A client was cited for violating dog out of control and vicious animal statutes. During the pertinent incident, the client
was walking her Labrador Retriever on the street within her subdivision. A neighbor’s Chihuahua bolted out its front door
and ran off its property and onto the street while barking aggressively at the client animal. The client animal bit the
Chihuahua, causing over $1500 in veterinary bills. This was the client dog’s second similar incident within the past year.
Working in conjunction with the attorney, a CPT expert behavioral analysis and summary affidavit regarding the dog and the
event was able to establish provocation, which by statute exculpated the client dog. Charges were dismissed.
- A client owning a well trained, friendly pit bull mix was accused of dog at large and vicious animal violations. During
the relevant incident, the owner’s child was walking the dog. The dog pulled the leash from the child and ran toward a neighbor.
The neighbor stated the dog jumped on him aggressively with intent to injure him. The child said the dog jumped on the neighbor
to “say hello.” The adult client stated that the neighbor is afraid of dogs, especially her breed. A CPT expert evaluated
the animal and produced video demonstrating that the dog was friendly and social with people and animals. In a subsequent
research report and summary affidavit, CPT also described the event from a behavioral perspective. The client plead guilty
to the dog at large violation (for when the child lost control of the leash), but the more serious vicious animal violation
was dismissed.
- A client was cited for violations of dog at large and vicious animal statutes. Furthermore, the client’s property owners’
association board of directors commenced efforts to utilize subdivision covenants to remove the dog from within the gated
community. The dog was accused of starting a dogfight and injuring a neighbor animal on one occasion and injuring another
neighbor animal on a second occasion. During the first incident, the client dog was on-leash on its property. An off-leash
neighbor dog progressed from its property to the client’s driveway while barking repeatedly. The client dog pulled on its
leash and escaped the owner’s daughter. A brief fight ensued, whereby the neighbor animal was injured. During the second
incident, a neighborhood dog received over $2,000 in veterinary bills, apparently from an animal attack. However, there
were no witnesses to the attack, only the aftermath, and no forensic evidence proving that wound marks matched the client
dog’s dentition. Working as a strategic team in conjunction with the client’s attorney, a thorough CPT expert evaluation
combined with a well researched written report and video evidence were able to prompt a dismissal of all charges and stop
inappropriate, harassing actions from the client’s POA.
|
