You are here: / / PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS PARTICIPATING IN A TRAINING SESSION WHEN HE...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS PARTICIPATING IN A TRAINING SESSION WHEN HE WAS BITTEN BY A POLICE DOG; THE TRAINING WAS A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION; THEREFORE THE MUNICIPALITY MUST HAVE OWED PLAINTIFF A SPECIAL DUTY TO BE LIABLE, NOT THE CASE HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality (City of Middletown) did not owe a special duty to plaintiff police officer, who was bitten by a police dog during training: The dog handler, Officer McDonald (a City of Middletown police officer), and plaintiff were participants in training sessions conducted by the NYS Homeland Security and Emergency Services when the unleased dog bit plaintiff:

As part of the training, the police dogs were off-leash. The plaintiff, who was participating in a different training event in a different building, entered the building where the explosives detection training exercise was being held and was still in progress when he was bitten by Officer McDonald’s police dog.

When a negligence cause of action is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality was exercising a governmental function, a municipality may not be held liable unless it owed a special duty to the injured party … . Such a special duty can arise, as relevant here, where “the municipality took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff. There was no evidence that Officer McDonald [the dog handler] took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition which gave rise to the plaintiff’s injuries … . The defendants established that Officer McDonald was an attendee at a training program conducted by the New York State Homeland Security and Emergency Services at a New York State facility, that he merely participated in the training exercise, and that he took direction from the NYPD canine instructor. Mahar v McDonald, 2025 NY Slip Op 00315, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here the police dog handler did not have control of the unleashed dog when it bit plaintiff. The dog and the handler were participating in an explosive-detection training session conducted by a third party. Because the dog handler had not taken control of a known and dangerous safety condition (the dog) at the time plaintiff was injured, the dog handler did not owe plaintiff a special duty, a prerequisite to municipal liability.

 

You might also like
Surrogate’s Court Has Jurisdiction to Determine the Legal Fees Owed to Out-Of-State Counsel for Services to the Estate
THE BASES FOR THE UPWARD DEPARTURE WERE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES; UPWARD DEPARTURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Arrested Without a Warrant Based Upon Illegally Seized Evidence Granted Summary Judgment in False Arrest/Imprisonment Action
THE EVIDENCE OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION VACATED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Insufficient Evidence of Incapacity—Appointment of Guardian Reversed
DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S CONTRACT BUT DID NOT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS RELATIONS OR ENGAGE IN UNFAIR COMPETITION; THE ELEMENTS OF THE THREE CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Appointment of Temporary Receiver to Wind Up Dissolution of Partnership Not Met
Parents of Children in Public Schools Had Standing to Seek Court Review of the SUNY Trustees’ Authorization of Charter Schools—The Authorization Was Not Arbitrary or Capricious or an Abuse of Discretion

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF WAS CROUCHING DOWN MARKING THE FLOOR WITH DUCT TAPE WHEN A LADDER... RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE NECESSARY PARTIES,...