In many dog-bite cases, attorneys and insurance carriers underestimate the potential value of inspecting the dog involved. Yet such an inspection can yield crucial behavioral evidence—evidence that clarifies liability, establishes foreseeability, and reveals the dog’s true temperament. From a forensic standpoint, observing the dog firsthand allows an expert witness to form opinions grounded not just in records and testimony, but in direct behavioral assessment.
A dog inspection connects the animal’s behavior to the circumstances surrounding the alleged bite. In many cases, this connection is key to resolving disputes over provocation, past aggression, or the reliability of witness statements.
When an Inspection May Be Appropriate
A behavioral inspection may be warranted depending on the facts of the case. Consider it when:
-
The dog is alive and available. If the dog can be safely examined and opposing counsel agrees, an inspection may be benefical.
-
The dog is central to the case. Even if little new information emerges, failing to inspect the dog may suggest an incomplete investigation.
-
Accounts conflict. When there are disagreements about how the incident occurred, an inspection may help clarify critical points.
-
The location matters. Visiting the scene can shed light on issues such as confinement, access, or environmental triggers.
The Role of the Physical Dog in Expert Testimony
Seeing the actual dog allows the expert to assess whether the animal’s behavior, training history, and general demeanor match the alleged bite. This forms a direct link between science-based behavioral principles and the specific facts of the case.
How Inspections Influence Liability and Credibility
An inspection can either validate or challenge assumptions. For example, if a dog shows a calm, affiliative temperament, that may undermine claims of “viciousness.” On the other hand, signs of fear-based aggression or territoriality could support arguments of negligence or inadequate control.
When an Inspection May Not Be Necessary
While often useful, inspections aren’t always essential. Some situations where they may add little value:
-
Discovery is sufficient. If existing evidence—such as depositions, witness statements, photographs, or animal control reports—clearly establishes liability, an inspection may be redundant.
-
Behavior is time-sensitive. Inspections only capture behavior at one point in time. The dog’s actions during the bite may differ significantly, especially if the event occurred months or years prior.
-
Time has passed. A long delay between the incident and inspection may affect the dog’s behavior due to age, environment, or health changes.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is the purpose of a dog inspection in a bite lawsuit?
To evaluate the dog’s temperament, triggers, and behavioral patterns, providing objective evidence from a qualified expert. - Who conducts the inspection?
A certified animal behaviorist—such as Dr. Richard Polsky—carries out the evaluation, which includes direct observation and case record review. - When should an attorney request an inspection?
As soon as possible after the incident, before the dog’s behavior is influenced by time or environmental changes. - What happens during an inspection?
The expert observes the dog’s responses to stimuli, notes behavioral traits, and compiles a formal report for use in court. - Is the report admissible in court?
Yes. The expert’s findings often support testimony and help courts interpret behavior in context. - Do both plaintiffs and defense attorneys use inspections?
Yes. Experts are retained by both sides to support their positions on the dog’s behavior and foreseeability of the incident. - How long does it take?
Most sessions last one to two hours, depending on the complexity of the case and the dog’s behavior. - How should attorneys prepare?
Provide relevant documents—veterinary records, bite reports, witness statements, photos—so the expert can evaluate the full context.
Conclusion
While not required in every case, a behavioral inspection often plays a decisive role in how courts understand what really happened. When done properly, it delivers science-based insight into whether the dog’s actions were predictable, preventable, or provoked. Attorneys who incorporate inspections early in case strategy are better positioned to argue liability, causation, and damages with authority.
Additional Resources
-
Expert Testimony in Dog-Bite Litigation
-
Understanding Foreseeability and Dangerous Propensities in California Law
-
Selecting a Qualified Dog-Bite Expert Witness
-
Animal Behavior and Forensic Psychology: Key Concepts for Attorneys
About the Author
Richard H. Polsky, Ph.D. is a court-qualified expert in animal behavior and dog-bite litigation. Based in Los Angeles, he has testified in cases nationwide, bringing over 30 years of behavioral science expertise to the courtroom. Dr. Polsky offers objective assessments for both plaintiffs and defendants in liability disputes.
To inquire about consultations or inspections, visit www.dogexpert.com or contact Dr. Polsky directly through the site’s consultation form.
