Vicious Propensity case update in.

Thurber v. Apmann, 2012 Slip. Op. 453 was handed down on January 26, 2012 by our Third Department. The defendant/respondent, an off-duty canine handler for the state police, was able to show as a matter of law that no vicious propensity existed in her retired K-9 trained dog for an attack on the plaintiff’s dog.

The plaintiff attempted to assert that the formal police training and use of K-9 dogs for police protection put the defendant on notice as to the dog’s vicious propensities. The court found that the formal police training the dog received did not constitute evidence of viciousness nor did it provide the defendant with notice.

In support of her summary judgment motion, the plaintiff satisfied her burden of her lack of knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensity by establishing that: the dog had been with her since it was a puppy, the dog was trained to act passively in its role as an explosive detection dog, the “handler protection” training the dog had received had never been utilized and the dog had never participated in apprehending a suspect.

Additionally, in its decision the court alludes that the circumstances of the attack (i.e. dog on dog) does not give rise to an issue of fact as to the vicious propensities of the animal.