Court: United States District Court for the District of ColoradoJurisdiction: FederalCase Name: Branson v. PriceCitation: 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128559
Facts
In this case, the defendant, a police officer, shot and killed the plaintiff’s dog. The plaintiff subsequently filed a suit against the defendant claiming that the defendant had violated his Fourth Amendment rights and acted unreasonably by killing the animal. The plaintiff hired a dog expert witness to testify that the dog was not acting aggressively when the officer killed it. The defendant filed the current motion to challenge the testimony of the plaintiff’s dog expert witness.
The Dog Expert
The plaintiff’s dog expert witness was the owner and director of the American Canine Academy in Denver, Colorado. He was a professional dog trainer with 20+ years of experience working with pet dogs, sporting dogs, service dogs, security dogs, and patrol dogs. The expert specialized in modifying behavior, training service dogs, tracking dogs, and providing canine protection services. The expert had experience with dogs of various sizes and breeds.
The dog expert witness completed multiple courses from The Michael Ellis School for Dog Trainers as well as an apprenticeship under a trainer. The dog expert was certified as an expert witness in litigation related to canine behavior, training, temperament, and kenneling. He formerly served as a training consultant for numerous service canine organizations and shelters. The dog expert witness also rescued and supervised the fostering and rehabilitation of troubled dogs, enabling them to live happy and healthy lives.
In order to form his opinions on the animal’s behavior at the time of the incident, the dog expert witness relied on video footage of the incident.
Discussion
The defendant challenged the dog expert’s opinions about the dog’s apparent fear at the time of the incident. The defendant also challenged the expert’s opinion regarding the animal’s intent when it ran, claiming that these opinions were inadmissible because they were not based on a reliable methodology and they guided the jury towards reaching a certain conclusion. The defendant further argued that decisions on the dog’s aggressive actions and the reasonability of the defendant’s actions were not proper subjects of expert opinion and should be left to the jury to decide.
The court noted that the dog expert had enough specialized knowledge and experience to sufficiently qualify as an expert witness and capable of offering testimony concerning canine behavior. His method of reviewing the dog’s behavior from the video of the incident was deemed sufficiently reliable methodology. The court further noted that the dog expert’s assessment of the exhibition of fear and intent on the part of the dog would help the jury assess the canine’s behavior, the level of threat the dog presented, and the reasonableness of the defendant’s actions. The court was of the opinion that the criticisms of the dog expert’s testimony raised by the defendant affected the weight of his opinion and not its admissibility.
Held
The defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s dog expert witness was denied.
About the author
Zach Barreto
Zach Barreto is a distinguished professional in the legal industry, currently serving as the Senior Vice President of Research at the Expert Institute. With a deep understanding of a broad range of legal practice areas, Zach's expertise encompasses personal injury, medical malpractice, mass torts, defective products, and many other sectors. His skills are particularly evident in handling complex litigation matters, including high-profile cases like the Opioids litigation, NFL Concussion Litigation, California Wildfires, 3M earplugs, Elmiron, Transvaginal Mesh, NFL Concussion Litigation, Roundup, Camp Lejeune, Hernia Mesh, IVC filters, Paraquat, Paragard, Talcum Powder, Zantac, and many others.
Under his leadership, the Expert Institute’s research team has expanded impressively from a single member to a robust team of 100 professionals over the last decade. This growth reflects his ability to navigate the intricate and demanding landscape of legal research and expert recruitment effectively. Zach has been instrumental in working on nationally significant litigation matters, including cases involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, toxic chemical exposure, and wrongful death, among others.
At the Expert Institute, Zach is responsible for managing all aspects of the research department and developing strategic institutional relationships. He plays a key role in equipping attorneys for success through expert consulting, case management, strategic research, and expert due diligence provided by the Institute’s cloud-based legal services platform, Expert iQ.
Educationally, Zach holds a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and European History from Vanderbilt University.
