Mark Golembiewski is a Detroit, Michigan police officer. He was assigned a 70-pound German Shepard K-9 police dog named Ben. In March 2020, Golembiewski took Ben to the vet for his annual checkup. Golembiewski was on duty, in full uniform, and muzzled Ben as he always did for vet visits. Nicholas Lynum was the veterinary technician assigned to evaluate Ben. Since the dog was too large for the examination table, Golembiewski held Ben against the floor with his arm around his neck, which Lynum later agreed was the safest way to perform the examination.
Lynum unsuccessfully attempted to draw blood from Ben’s leg several times. After the final attempt, Lynum released Ben’s leg and stood up. This caused Ben to spin around and lunge for Lynum. Unfortunately, Golembiewski was not quick enough to catch Ben, who had simultaneously slipped off his muzzle. Ben bit Lynum’s arm, causing significant injury. Golembiewski immediately called Ben off, who returned to heel, ending the attack.
Lynum sued the Police Department, the City, and Golembiewski for his injuries. The trial court soon thereafter granted summary judgment to the Department and the City. Lynum and Golembiewski proceeded to litigate whether the suit against Golembiewski was barred by governmental immunity. Golembiewski argued that he was acting in his official capacity during the incident. Lynum disagreed, and further alleged that Golembiewski was grossly negligent “because he should have better restrained Ben, should have had Ben on a shorter leash, and should have used a better muzzle on Ben during the visit to the veterinary hospital.” The trial court eventually granted summary judgment to Golembiewski, and Lynum appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. First, it found that Golembiewski was immune from litigation under the state dog-bite statute because he was acting in his official government capacity: “He was wearing his police uniform and had driven to the veterinary hospital in his police cruiser. Ben was a K-9 police dog who had been assigned to Golembiewski who brought Ben to the veterinary hospital for Ben’s annual checkup so that he could continue in his role as a police dog. Thus, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendant Golembiewski was in the course of his employment while caring for his assigned K-9 police dog. Further, defendant Golembiewski would not have even been at the veterinary hospital on the day of the incident had he not been assigned to care for Ben as part of his job at the Department.”
Next, the Court rejected Lynum’s argument that Golembiewski should nonetheless face liability because he was grossly negligent: “Here, Golembiewski had Ben leashed and muzzled when they entered the veterinary hospital. Ben wore the leash the entire time during the visit and wore the muzzle until he slipped out of it during the incident. Further, during his deposition, Lynum himself stated that defendant Golembiewski was handling Ben the ‘best and safest way’ during the examination. Golembiewski held Ben in a headlock with his arm around Ben’s throat and pushed Ben to the floor of the examination room. Once Lynum released Ben’s leg during the examination, Ben abruptly got free of Golembiewski’s hold and spun around toward Lynum. Golembiewski stated that he was not ‘quick enough’ to grab Ben. Defendant Golembiewski immediately ‘called Ben off in midair’ and warned Lynum that Ben had slipped his muzzle. However, because Ben was so close to Lynum, Golembiewski could not stop Ben in time.” Accordingly, Lynum had no claim against Golembiewski in his individual capacity.
Lynum v. Detroit Police Department, No. 363432, 2023 WL 8292585 (Mich. Ct. App.).