Minnesota Supreme Court: State Patrol can be sued over unprovoked K-9 attack

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the State Patrol can be sued for liability after an unprovoked attack by one of its K-9s on an Owatonna car dealership employee.

Cristina Berrier, who worked at a dealership that regularly services State Patrol vehicles, sued after she was bit on March 15, 2019 by Diesel, a K-9 service dog. Berrier alleged that she suffered serious and permanent injuries from the attack.

In a 4-2 decision, Justice Margaret H. Chutich wrote for the majority that the state was not immune from prosecution under Minnesota’s dog-bite statute, which imposes “strict liability” on the owner of a dog if it attacks without provocation, and that sovereign immunity — a legal doctrine which states that the government cannot be sued without its consent — does not apply.

“Because we conclude that the Legislature plainly, clearly, and unmistakably waived sovereign immunity for claims brought under the dog-bite statute, we hold that the State Patrol may be sued under that provision.” Chutich wrote.

The state’s dog-bite statute reads:

“The owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term ‘owner’ includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the owner shall be primarily liable.”

Berrier’s attorney Grant Borgen told the Star Tribune Wednesday this was a hard-earned decision for his client with lasting effect.

“She is looking forward to closure and now having a trial. I think at the same time she is proud to sort of be a part of history,” Borgen said. “It’s a big momentous occasion. There wasn’t really a direct case on point so this really made clear law in the area of immunity.”

A spokesperson for the State Patrol did not have immediate comment and said officials were reviewing the decision.

Berrier’s lawsuit was filed in Steele County District Court, where a judge denied a motion to dismiss by the State Patrol. But the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled last year that the State Patrol could not be held liable under the statute, citing sovereign immunity.

In overturning the Appeals Court Wednesday, the Supreme Court wrote that Minnesota’s Tort Claims Act established that the state can be held liable “under circumstances where the state, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant.”

Berrier alleged in her lawsuit that her injuries were “a direct and proximate result” of the State Patrol’s negligence.

Borgen said legal arguments over immunity have long found their way to the state Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court likes to be the final arbiter if the state should be immune in certain circumstances,” he said. “I think that’s maybe why they took the case and ultimately reversed the case, too — to say ‘No, these are the circumstances when the state should be held liable just like any private person would be.’”

Borgen told the Star Tribune last year that Diesel regularly hung out in the service bay area while the unnamed trooper brought his squad car in. Borgen said the trooper directed Berrier to put Diesel back in the squad car, and she followed his directive.

“She petted [Diesel] goodbye like she had done on occasions before that and the dog bit her,” Borgen said. “This dog was not trained to attack; it was trained to detect narcotics.”

The bite on her hand required surgery to treat an infection, Borgen said.

Justice Karl C. Procaccini dissented from the majority opinion, citing the fact that the state’s dog-bite statute, “does not plainly, clearly, and unmistakably waive the State’s sovereign immunity.”

Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson joined Procaccini in his dissent, while Justice Sarah E. Hennesy took no part in the decision.

Star Tribune staff writer Kim Hyatt contributed to this story.