TUCSON, Ariz. (KGUN) — The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, upheld a lower court's decision in a lawsuit involving Samantha McClellan and Pima County Sheriff Christopher Nanos, affirming that Nanos was not liable for injuries McClellan sustained during an encounter with a police dog, according to documents from appeals court.
Documents say McClellan had filed a lawsuit claiming strict liability under Arizona law after being bitten by a police K-9 during a 2020 incident where deputies showed up at the apartment to arrest another individual.
She argued the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment as a matter of law, asserting that there was no evidence to support the defense's claim of provocation, documents showed.
The appellate court, however, found that the trial court acted correctly in leaving the matter to a jury, the documents said.
The case stemmed from a March 2020 visit by Pima County Sheriff's Deputies to McClellan's apartment to return a set of keys. One of the deputies, Sergeant Eric Maldonado, was accompanied by a police K-9.
When McClellan opened her door, her dog ran out and attacked the police dog, the document said.
A violent dogfight ensued, during which McClellan intervened, leaning over the officers and the animals.
The police dog bit her arm, causing injuries.
McClellan sued Sheriff Nanos, asserting liability for the bite.
The defense argued that McClellan's actions provoked the police dog, triggering the bite.
Arizona law exempts dog owners, including law enforcement agencies, from liability in cases where the injured party provokes the animal.
The trial court denied McClellan's motion for judgment as a matter of law, citing conflicting evidence and ruling that the issue of provocation was for the jury to decide.
The jury ultimately sided with Nanos, finding that McClellan’s actions constituted provocation under Arizona law.
On appeal, McClellan contended that the provocation defense did not apply because the police dog was not actively engaged in law enforcement duties such as suspect apprehension or crime investigation at the time of the bite.
She also argued that her actions were not intentionally provocative.
The appellate court rejected McClellan's arguments, interpreting Arizona law to allow the provocation defense even when a police dog is not performing specific law enforcement duties.
The court noted that provocation need not be intentional and is determined based on whether a reasonable person would expect their actions to provoke a dog.
This decision reinforces the broad scope of Arizona's provocation defense, particularly in cases involving police dogs.
The ruling clarifies that governmental immunity applies when provocation is evident, regardless of whether the animal is actively performing law enforcement functions.
McClellan has not indicated whether she plans to pursue further legal action.
