CPT provided expert consultation, analysis, and an affidavit in support of a Defendant in a civil matter filed in the state of Montana. The Defendant was accused by the Plaintiff, a veterinary technician, of negligently failing to inform the Plaintiff and her employer, a veterinary facility that also provided boarding services, of the aggressive propensity of the Defendant’s 3 Olde English Bulldogges. While the Defendant was on vacation, one of his dogs aggressively bit the Plaintiff, whereupon the other two family dogs packed aggressively and also bit and shook the Plaintiff. Resultantly, the Plaintiff suffered a fractured ulna and radius, a dislocated shoulder, and severe lacerations to her upper and lower extremities.
The expert affidavit countered the Plaintiff’s claims of negligence by emphasizing:
- The lack of evidence of prior out of context aggressive behavior on the part of any of the dogs while under the care or supervision of the Defendant or his family,
- The Plaintiff’s employer’s previous experience caring for the dogs in both a veterinary and boarding capacity,
- The evidence of a possibly aggressive event that occurred during a previous board at the employer site where the boarding caretaker failed to verbally inform the Plaintiff, her employer, or co-workers or to enter pertinent information onto a chart or computer database,
- The Defendant’s lack of scienter regarding how his dogs behaved in a boarding environment,
- The employer and Plaintiff’s superior knowledge regarding how the Defendant’s dogs behaved while boarded and how dogs in general behave when boarded,
- The employer’s and Plaintiff’s failure to exercise due diligence by verbally or in writing asking questions of the Plaintiff regarding the dogs’ behavioral history,
- Fact that the situation was a voluntary bailment for hire, whereby the Plaintiff and her employer owed the Defendant beyond a standard duty of care,
- The mismanagement of the boarding situation by allowing all 3 defendant dogs out simultaneously with the petite Plaintiff as the sole human caretaker, which constituted one of several breaches of the duty of care,
- The inadequate education in canine behavior received by the Plaintiff either from her employer or on self-initiative,
- The fact that the employer was a licensed veterinarian, who should have had knowledge regarding the proper care of animals in a boarding environment, the interpretation of canine body language, and factors that may increase environmental stress and concomitant aggression,
- The fact that the Plaintiff was employed in a professional position that required knowledge regarding animal husbandry and behavior,
- the Plaintiff’s inability to properly interpret canine body language on the day in question and to perceive the dogs as anxious and stressed, and
- the Plaintiff’s inappropriate harsh verbal response to jumping behavior that likely provoked the event.
