COA reverses dog bite ruling.

Byline: Thomas Franz

A Michigan Court of Appeals panel has overturned district and circuit court rulings in Alpena County that ordered a dog to be put down after it attacked a jogger.

In Reid v. Kramer and Mainfield (MiLW No. 08-100656, 5 pages), the panel agreed with lower courts that the dog was "dangerous," but said it did not cause death or serious injury, and therefore orders for putting the dog down should be reversed.

Judges Jonathan Tukel, Deborah A. Servitto and Michael J. Riordan reversed and remanded the case.

Background

On May 13, 2017, Joshua Henderson was jogging past the respondents' home when their dog, Bruiser, ran toward Henderson and bit his left bicep and forearm.

Henderson struck Bruiser a couple of times before the dog let go of his arm. The COA opinion noted that Henderson described his injuries as teeth marks and scrapes to his upper left bicep and several puncture wounds to his left forearm.

Henderson testified he jogged the same route nearly every day for about one year. He said there were many houses in the area and children often walked or rode bikes on the street. After the attack, he changed his route.

Respondents Katrina Kramer and Thomas Mainfield said they had owned Bruiser for three years and this was the first time he had attacked a person. They said the dog was raised with children and often had children around him.

Legal action

In July 2017, Alpena County Animal Control Officer Michelle Reid filed a complaint against the respondents alleging that Bruiser, a black and tan German Shepherd, had attacked and bitten a person.

The COA wrote that the prosecutor explained that destroying the dog wasn't initially being sought because the respondents were completing a fence in their backyard. If the fence wasn't acceptable, then the prosecution would request for Bruiser to be put down.

But the district court concluded that Bruiser should be destroyed because he injured Henderson and he might injure a child.

The circuit court ruled Bruiser was a dangerous animal, but stayed euthanizing proceedings pending this appeal.

Analysis

The respondents argued the circuit court wrongly determined that Bruiser was a dangerous animal under MCL 287.321(a). They also argued that the evidence didn't support a finding that Bruiser caused death or serious injury, or that he was likely to do so in the future.

The COA concluded that Bruiser was a dangerous animal, but agreed with the respondents that the evidence was insufficient to...