|
|
CPT President Mark Spivak is an experienced expert witness for either plaintiff
or defense purposes in both civil and criminal matters. Mr. Spivak’s experience
includes researching, investigating, writing convincing affidavits, and testifying
on behalf of clients while working closely in conjunction with the client’s attorney.
How An Expert In Animal Behavior and Training Can Assist An Attorney
CIVIL
-
Dog bite injuries
-
Homeowner-victim claims regarding person or property
-
Landlord-tenant issues
-
Seller-purchaser contract issues
-
Service performance issues
-
Negligence issues
-
Questions of provocation
CRIMINAL
-
Zoning violations
-
(habitats, breed specific ordinances)
-
Animal control violations
-
(barking, dog at large, nuisance complaints)
-
(scratching, biting, quarantine)
-
(vicious animal hearings)
-
Misdemeanors and felonies
Examples of How CPT Expert Witness Services Have Helped Clients
-
While running across an area in dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant as to
whether it was community property or private property, the Plaintiff client’s minor
child was severely bitten on the leg by the Defendant’s chained German Shepherd
Mix. Resultantly, the child required several surgical procedures. The Defendant’s
lawyers hired by his insurance company refused to provide a reasonable settlement
offer. They argued that the dog was properly confined within the laws of the county
and municipality, that the child had trespassed onto the Defendant’s property, that
the Defendant had posted appropriate “Beware of Dog” signs along the front of the
property, and that the Defendant had no prior knowledge of the dog’s aggressive
behavior, since there were never any formal charges or convictions against the Defendant
for violating dangerous dog statutes. Due to opposing counsel’s recalcitrance, Plaintiff
attorneys contracted with CPT. Unfortunately, a first-hand behavioral evaluation
of the dog was impossible, since the Defendant had the dog euthanized several months
after the incident.
Nevertheless, by utilizing the case files and transcripts combined with a thorough
review of the CLE course “Animals and the Law”, a CPT expert analysis and concomitant
affidavit was able to convincingly support the client’s/Plaintiff’s arguments that:
1) Based on two acknowledged unreported bites, the Defendant had prior knowledge
of the dog’s unprovoked aggressive behavior, 2) The Defendant was aware of the dog’s
known propensity to behave aggressively toward neighbor children, 3) The Defendant’s
failed to exercise due diligence to protect the public, 4) Chaining the dog increased
the probability that the dog would act upon its known aggressive propensities, 5)
The Defendant’s actions were legally negligent- since information was readily available
in the public domain that chaining increased the probability of aggressive behavior-
similarly, information was available in the public domain that many counties and
municipalities had concomitantly statutorily prohibited chaining due to the risk
chaining presented to the public, 6) The chained dog potentially posed an attractive
nuisance to the young child, 7) There is information in the public domain that German
Shepherds and German Shepherd Mixes, in comparison to the average domestic dog breed,
have a higher probability of acting aggressively and a higher probability of inflicting
severe or lethal bites, 8) Lack of proper care on the part of the Defendant could
have contributed to the dog’s aggressive propensities, 9) The Defendant was aware
that neighbor children frequently used the disputed common area, 10) The Defendant
should have been aware that the length of the dog’s chain allowed the dog to have
contact with children who frequently walked or ran on the disputed area, 11) Shrubbery
between the undisputed private property of the defendant and the disputed common
area obstructed the small child’s view of the dog and created a hidden trap, 12)
“Beware of Dog” signage was not conspicuously placed where it was visible to a child
using the common area, 13) Georgia civil case precedent has determined that a young
child is considered unaware of the concept of trespass, 14) The shrubbery may have
heightened the dog’s territorial aggressive behavior, 15) The child running may
have heightened the dog’s barrier frustration, territoriality, and/or predatory
aggressive behavior, 16) The Defendant failed to reduce exposure to known potential
risks by properly confining the dog, 17) The Defendant failed to reduce risks by
commencing any form of obedience or behavioral training, and 18) The size, depth,
and severity of the bite did not correspond to the level of threat rationally posed
by the child and was the maladaptive act of an unstable, poorly managed dog. Consequently,
the previously intractable insurance company attorneys agreed to substantially increase
their settlement offer.
-
CPT provided expert trial testimony in a case involving a dispute between a purchaser
and breeder. The Plaintiff purchaser believed the dog’s aggressive behavior frequently
exhibited toward several members of the family amidst food or territory and post
commands or reprimands constituted a violation of warranties present in the breeder-authored
puppy sales contract. CPT expert testimony corroborated the Plaintiff’s observations
of the dog, technically categorized the dog’s behavior within the formal classifications
of “dominant aggressive, possessive aggressive, and fear aggressive,” and classified
the dog’s behavior as “abnormal,” especially for a puppy less than six months of
age.
-
CPT has consulted in a civil case involving police brutality. The Gwinnett County
police believed the Plaintiff robbed a convenience store, then stole an automobile
to aid in his escape. The police pursued the stolen automobile, whereby they stated
they visually observed the Plaintiff abandon the automobile alongside a road and
flee by foot into a wooded area. The police strategically positioned backup officers
around the perimeter of the wooded area. A Gwinnett County police dog then tracked
the suspect Plaintiff from the point of the abandoned car into a specific thicket
within the wooded area. Once the Plaintiff’s position was located, the police dog
handler verbally informed the hidden Plaintiff that he was under arrest and that
he was to move into view. When the Plaintiff refused the police dog handler’s requests,
the handler announced three times that he would “send” his dog and that the dog
“will bite.” The handler released the dog, whereby the dog bit the handler on the
arm. Subsequently, the handler and an accompanying officer attempted to subdue and
handcuff the Plaintiff. In the process, the Plaintiff again fled on foot. The handler
again announced that he would “send” his dog and that the dog “will bite.” The officer
released the dog. The dog bit the fleeing Plaintiff in the posterior thigh, causing
severe injury, including deep lacerations and tearing of the hamstring muscle. The
Plaintiff’s attorney’s requested that CPT analyze case files, depositions, Gwinnett
County regulations regarding handling and usage of police dogs, and the training
records of the particular police dog and handler to determine whether the handler
violated standard protocols or procedures or whether training records indicated
that the dog was either not trained to specification or exhibited abnormally aggressive
behavior. A research report and verbal summation to the Plaintiff’s attorneys concluded
that the officer followed standard Gwinnett County protocols and that the dog acted
in accordance with guidelines. Therefore, the case was weak regarding improper handling
or training of the dog. However, further analysis concluded that the Gwinnett County
police handler protocols were more aggressive than those utilized in surrounding
counties. Thus, the strength of the case should not focus on the improper actions
of the officer per the standards established by his police department, but that
the standards of the police department allowed the use of excessive force that violated
the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, which was an issue better left to an expert
in criminal justice or constitutional law than an expert in animal behavior and
training.
-
Client was arrested and charged with felony aggravated assault on a law enforcement
officer. The officer accused the client of intentionally sending his dog to attack.
Though there was no contact and no injuries, the officer alleged the client used
commands that prompted the dog to chase her off the property. Expert observational
and video analysis and a resultant affidavit proved incontrovertibly that the dog
was not trained in protection, was not innately aggressive or inordinately territorial,
and did not understand the protection commands stated in the officer’s complaint.
To strengthen the case we provided a video of a contrasting dog trained in protection.
The charges were dismissed.
-
Client was arrested and charged with felony cruelty to children. Her child was removed
from her home and placed in the custody of DFACS. The school counselor and police
alleged injuries to the child arose from physical abuse. The child and mother attested
that injuries arose from rough play with the family dog. Medical reports were inconclusive
as to the origin of the wounds, but categorized them as scratches and excoriated
lesions (not bruises or hematomas). Expert evaluation of the client dog, along with
expert coordinated photographs, and video demonstrated an untrained, out of control
animal, who due to breed tendencies and lack of attention often jumped, pawed and
scratched. The animal had long, untrimmed nails that had scratched through sheetrock
in a basement enclosure. Moreover, photographs of the scratches closely corresponded
to the direction and dimension of the wound sites documented in the hospital medical
report created at the urging of DFACS. Expert analysis and a summary affidavit supported
the defense's position and raised more than reasonable doubt that injuries to the
child were originated by the family dog- not a human, as initially alleged by the
state. CPT's research and resultant affidavit was essential in having the charges
dismissed and the child returned home to his parents.
-
Dekalb County and a client’s condominium association accused the client of owning
a "pit bull" in violation of zoning ordinances and restrictive covenants. Expert
evaluation of the dog and a summary affidavit demonstrated that he was not a pit
bull per the definitions authored within the pertinent County statute. The client
was allowed to keep her dog.
-
A client was cited for violating dog out of control and vicious animal statutes.
During the pertinent incident, the client was walking her Labrador Retriever on
the street within her subdivision. A neighbor’s Chihuahua bolted out its front door
and ran off its property and onto the street while barking aggressively at the client
animal. The client animal bit the Chihuahua, causing over $1500 in veterinary bills.
This was the client dog’s second similar incident within the past year. Working
in conjunction with the attorney, a CPT expert behavioral analysis and summary affidavit
regarding the dog and the event was able to establish provocation, which by statute
exculpated the client dog. Charges were dismissed.
-
A client owning a well trained, friendly pit bull mix was accused of dog at large
and vicious animal violations. During the relevant incident, the owner’s child was
walking the dog. The dog pulled the leash from the child and ran toward a neighbor.
The neighbor stated the dog jumped on him aggressively with intent to injure him.
The child said the dog jumped on the neighbor to “say hello.” The adult client stated
that the neighbor is afraid of dogs, especially her breed. A CPT expert evaluated
the animal and produced video demonstrating that the dog was friendly and social
with people and animals. In a subsequent research report and summary affidavit,
CPT also described the event from a behavioral perspective. The client plead guilty
to the dog at large violation (for when the child lost control of the leash), but
the more serious vicious animal violation was dismissed.
-
A client was cited for violations of dog at large and vicious animal statutes. Furthermore,
the client’s property owners’ association board of directors commenced efforts to
utilize subdivision covenants to remove the dog from within the gated community.
The dog was accused of starting a dogfight and injuring a neighbor animal on one
occasion and injuring another neighbor animal on a second occasion. During the first
incident, the client dog was on-leash on its property. An off-leash neighbor dog
progressed from its property to the client’s driveway while barking repeatedly.
The client dog pulled on its leash and escaped the owner’s daughter. A brief fight
ensued, whereby the neighbor animal was injured. During the second incident, a neighborhood
dog received over $2,000 in veterinary bills, apparently from an animal attack.
However, there were no witnesses to the attack, only the aftermath, and no forensic
evidence proving that wound marks matched the client dog’s dentition. Working as
a strategic team in conjunction with the client’s attorney, a thorough CPT expert
evaluation combined with a well researched written report and video evidence was
able to prompt a dismissal of all charges and stop inappropriate, harassing actions
from the client’s POA.
|
