As an animal behavior expert witness & dog bite legal consultant for attorneys in Arizona and Oregon, I have been frequently contacted seeking my opinions as a canine expert witness in dog bite litigation. The impression I found by speaking with some attorneys is that the attorney was seeking an advocate rather than an impartial expert witness. This must be avoided.

Rather, the job of the expert witness is to provide objective and non-biased information about dog behavior and how such knowledge ties into dog bite law in their respective state. Ideally, the expert’s knowledge should not only be drawn from practical experience but also from knowledge drawn from the scientific literature about the motivation of animal behavior. ^[1]Dog trainers and veterinarians likely have a shallow understanding of motivational aspects of animal behavior as it applies to dogs. In particular, veterinarians and veterinary … Continue reading

Given this, I describe examples that should help attorneys in Arizona and Oregon gain insight about the role of an animal behavior expert witness in dog bite litigation. The fact pattern from these cases exemplifies the issues involved in dog bite litigation in Arizona and Oregon, states with differing laws for dog bite (common law, strict liability and negligence in Oregon, and strict liability and negligence in Arizona).

Animal behavior expert opinion involving dog bites in Arizona and Oregon

Dog bite reconstruction 

Golden Retriever attacks on people that cause significant personal injury are rare. Nonetheless, a fact pattern commonly found in dog bite lawsuits deals with the issue of animal behavior reconstruction.

The plaintiff’s attorney argued that the two golden retrievers that attacked his clients possessed dangerous propensities before the date of the incident. This argument seemed improbable given the fact pattern of the case. The defense required a dog expert witness to reconstruct the incident and to evaluate the Golden Retrievers behavioral tendencies.

The plaintiff and defendant lived approximately three houses apart. The plaintiff testified the defendant’s dogs unexpectedly entered her garage an attempt to get to her small dog, tethered in the backyard behind the garage. Allegedly, in her attempt to stop the defendant’s dogs from entering the backyard, the mother grabbed one of the golden retrievers by the collar, and her 10-year-old daughter grabbed the other golden retriever by its collar. In the process, both plaintiffs were injured, dragged a substantial distance, and bitten.

Important issues focused on the temperament of the golden retriever dogs, their ability to drag a person over distance, and the golden retriever’s willingness to enter an unfamiliar garage to attack an unknown person. Did these dogs possess a temperament consistent with a dog who would bite an unknown person in unfamiliar surroundings? Did the dogs possess the willingness and strength to drag a 70-pound child?

Dr. Polsky conducted a behavioral examination to collect information to answer these questions. Based on the results from this testing, the behavioral history of the dogs, and the totality of the evidence, the conclusion reached was that these dogs lacked the capability or the willingness to engage in the behaviors alleged by the plaintiff.  As the plaintiff’s  claimed, these dogs did not exhibit dangerous tendencies.

Dog bite provocation 

Opinions regarding provocation are likely the most common animal behavior issue  in dog bite cases. I was called to do so in one such case. It involved a pit bull which viciously attacked a 25-year-old plumber.  The incident happened during the plaintiff’s visit to a plumbing supply yard.

The fact pattern was as follows: soon after the plaintiff entered the premises, he approached an employee who was feeding the pit bull. The pit bull served as a guard dog for the premises. The plaintiff stopped to ask an employee a question, and the pitbull who was nearby growled and launched an attack on the plaintiff, which caused severe injuries to his legs.

Animal behavior expert opinion was needed regarding: (1) how likely it was that something like this would happen based on the dog’s history of behavior problems and the events leading up to the attack; (2) whether the plaintiff’s actions caused the pit bull to attack; and (3) findings from the literature on  canine behavior, especially when it comes to how pit bulls act when they are guard dogs.

Did the plaintiff’s action cause the dog to attack? Conclusions were (1) the actions of the plaintiff were benign and not tied to the causation of the attack, and (2) the defendants were negligent in allowing their pit bull to loose during working hours.

Key takeaways for Arizona & Oregon dog bite attorneys

• The dog bite expert witness should not play the role as an advocate.
• There is a lot of nonsense floating around about dog behavior.  Anthropomorphic reasoning abounds, particularly by dog trainers and veterinarians masquerading as bona fide experts in animal behavior.
• Whenever feasible, scientific research on dogs that has been published in peer-reviewed journals in the animal behavior literature should serve as a basis for decisions regarding liability in dog bite cases. Therefore, a specialist with extensive training in animal behavior and a proven track record of success in this area is required. Given their training in the analysis and causation of animal behavior, PhDs in animal behavior are best suited for this position.

Meet Dr. Polsky

Dr. Polsky’s has provided dog expert witness consultation and services to attorneys in  Arizona and Oregon for over two decades.  Dr. Polsky’s curriculum vita.

Further reading

• Which dogs bite? A case-control study of risk factors.
• The Incidence of Facial Injuries From Dog Bites
• Testing for human direct aggression in dogs