Alex Geiger began working as a police officer in Exeter, California in 2014. In 2015, he began working as a canine handler under the supervision of Sergeant Brett Inglehart. The City purchased a Belgian Malinois named Neo, and provided Geiger with a kennel, a food dish, a special patrol car, and other supplies for Neo’s training. Geiger received extensive instructions in how to train Neo during the initial bonding period, which included warnings that Neo must always remain on a lead unless secured in the patrol vehicle or kennel, and to keep Neo away from other pets and humans.
Neo was trained both to detect narcotics and to search for and apprehend human beings. The training syllabus anticipated that Geiger would complete 200 hours of hands-on work with Neo and 40 hours of classroom time. Log sheets later revealed that Geiger spent somewhat less than 200 hours of hands-on work with Neo, and zero hours of classroom time. Geiger and Neo continued to attend weekly and monthly training thereafter. They began patrolling together in December 2015.
In the summer of 2016, Geiger accepted a police officer position with another department, which was uninterested in establishing a canine unit. Inglehart told Geiger that he could either purchase Neo from the City, the City could attempt to acclimate Neo to a new trainer, or Neo would be euthanized. Geiger chose to purchase Neo. Inglehart and other City employees never specifically warned Geiger that Neo would remain a dangerous animal after his retirement, later testifying that they believed Geiger was thoroughly aware of this fact based on his past training and experience. Geiger also agreed to release the City from any liability arising from his ownership and control of Neo. Geiger moved to a new home with a fenced-in backyard and treated Neo as a pet. He later testified that he did not understand that Neo needed to be kept in a kennel and should not have been treated as a pet.
While Geiger was at work, Neo escaped from his enclosure and mauled two of Geiger’s neighbors. One died three days later due to blood loss from his extensive and numerous wounds. The other, an elderly woman, survived the attack but was permanently disabled, with lifelong health consequences until her death several years later. The victims and their survivors sued the City, the police chief, Inglehart, and Geiger, and obtained a judgment of about $20 million after a jury trial. The City and its employees appealed, arguing that they owed no legal duty to the victims and their survivors.
The Court agreed and reversed, noting that “a person generally has no duty to protect others from a peril the person did not create, unless that person has a special relationship with either the victim or the person who created the harm.” It rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the City had a special relationship with Geiger as his employer. While this was true prior to Geiger purchasing Neo, once the purchase was complete and Geiger was no longer an employee, the special relationship ended. Accordingly, the City was in no special relationship with Geiger at the time of the attack.
The Court also noted that even if there was a special relationship, it would still have to consider whether a public policy justified precluding liability for the City. “These policy considerations include the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, ‘the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community’ of imposing a duty of care in this context, and the availability of insurance for the risk involved.”
The Court evaluated each of these considerations. First, it noted that it was unclear how further warnings by the City could have prevented the plaintiffs’ injuries, because Geiger was already trained to keep Neo in his kennel and not to socialize him with other pets and humans. Similarly, the City was not morally responsible, nor could it have prevented future harm, because the City had no way of knowing that Geiger would abandon safe handling practices once he purchased Neo. The Court also accepted the City’s argument that imposing a duty would greatly disincentivize police departments from forming canine units and would highly incentivize euthanizing retired canines. The Court found the availability of insurance to be a neutral factor, because no matter what, the associated costs of insurance or liability would be borne by the taxpayer. The judgment, as applied to the City and its employees, was reversed.
Long v. City of Exeter, 2d Civil No. B316324, 2024 WL 191314 (Cal. Super. Ct.).