A tragic incident involving a police service dog has led to a complex legal battle over responsibility and duty of care. The complaint, filed by Betty Long and others in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six on July 23, 2024, names the City of Exeter as the defendant.
The case centers around an attack-trained police service dog sold by the Exeter Police Department to its handler, Officer Alex Geiger, who was resigning to join another police department. Six months after the sale, the dog escaped from Geiger's yard and attacked two neighbors, killing one and severely injuring the other. A jury found that both the city's police chief and the supervisor of its canine unit were negligent for failing to warn Geiger about the dog's persistent dangerousness due to its attack training. The court awarded $12.5 million in damages to Betty Long and $7 million to David Fear's survivors.
Initially, an appellate court reversed this judgment, arguing that there was no duty to provide more explicit warnings about the dog's dangerousness. However, following a review by the Supreme Court and guidance from Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks Inc., which clarified that a special relationship is not required for imposing a duty of care when a defendant's conduct creates or increases risk, the case was reconsidered.
Despite this reconsideration, the appellate court maintained its stance that appellants owed no duty under Civil Code section 1714 since they did not create or contribute to the risk posed by Geiger’s negligent handling of Neo after his resignation. The court concluded that without a special relationship between appellants and respondents or appellants' ability to control Geiger’s actions post-resignation, there was no legal obligation for further warnings.
The plaintiffs sought substantial damages for negligence but faced significant legal hurdles. Expert witnesses testified about industry standards for handling retired police dogs and argued that Geiger should have been given specific warnings about maintaining strict control over Neo. However, opposing experts contended that existing training protocols were sufficient and additional warnings would not have necessarily prevented the incident.
In addition to addressing negligence claims, appellants also contested procedural issues such as untimely amendments naming individual defendants and excessive damage awards. These arguments were ultimately deemed unnecessary given the ruling on duty of care.
Representing Betty Long et al., attorneys Steven B. Stevens; Frederick Law Firm; Jacqueline Frederick; Cheong & Denove; John F. Denove; Alicia S. Curran; Reed Smith; Raymond A. Cardozo argued passionately for their clients' suffering and losses. On behalf of City of Exeter et al., Wilke Fleury; Suzanne M. Nicholson; Chester E. Walls defended against these claims with equal vigor.
Judge Barry T. LaBarbera presided over this intricate case under Case ID 17CV-0529 in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court.