Our case has been progressing through the courts for years, with the state Supreme Court hearing it in March 2024. The central issue is whether the state is liable when K-9s from the state patrol bite and injure someone without provocation.
The debate, which has been covered in the news, centers around Minnesota’s dog bite law, which holds dog owners liable if their dogs attack or injure someone acting peacefully in a place they are lawfully allowed to be.
Firm attorney Grant Borgen argued, “The trooper allowed Miss Berrier to interact with one of the dogs and the dog bit Berrier without warning. The words ‘the owner of the dog’ clearly apply to the state when it owns the dog that attacks.”
Attack took place in 2019
The incident dates back to 2019 when Cristina Berrier was bitten by a state patrol canine in Owatonna. She worked at a car dealership where a trooper had brought his squad car for service. Berrier suffered a long-term injury to one hand and subsequently sued the state patrol.
Her lawsuit was about to go to trial in 2022 when the state argued that Minnesota law protects it from liability claims.
Assistant Minnesota Attorney General Michael Goodwin stated, “That means the state patrol is immune from suit under that provision here.”
High court says case can move forward
The State Supreme Court ruled 19 years ago that city and county K-9s are subject to Minnesota’s dog bite law. Their recent ruling confirms that the state patrol should be treated the same way, without immunity, unless the legislature changes the law.
“This confirms exactly what the district court said, which is that the Minnesota State Patrol or any Minnesota state agency is not immune from Minnesota’s strict liability dog bite statute,” says attorney Borgen.
With this ruling, the lawsuit against the state is back on track.
