A police officer in Connecticut was bit by his K-9 partner and his wife filed a negligence suit against the officer who arrived on the scene with the dog, saying that he left the windows of the squad car open and allowed the dog to get out and bite the officer. In court, the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation appellate court said this was all considered a general risk of his job and was not unusual or negligent on the part of the other officer.

Alex Rodriguez was dealing with a fight and was arresting several of those people involved in July of 2011. Officer Douglas Clark and a K-9, Niko, came to the scene to assist Rodriguez. Officer Clark left the windows of the police car down and left the car running, and Niko got out of the car. The dog nipped at one other officer and then attacked and bit Mr. Rodriguez. According to his statement he said the injuries he suffered “affected his mobility and quality of life”. He said that the injuries caused him to retire from the police force.

Rodriguez and his wife alleged that Officer Clark was negligent in failing to control and restrain Niko and was negligent in not properly operating a motor vehicle. They claimed he was also negligent under the dog bite statute. Niko was part of the K-9 unit but Officer Clark kept him, so he was more of an owner than a partner to Niko. Niko was trained to attack humans when they needed to be subdued by the police, but Rodriguez contended that he had the situation under control when Clark and Niko got there and that Niko’s services were not even needed.

Officer Clark said he was protected by the exclusive remedy section of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which protects co-workers and others from a lawsuit in the event that someone is injured at work. He also said that the dog bite was defended by governmental immunity which can be extended to municipalities. The court ruled that since the motor vehicle was not being operated by the defendant at the time of the injury, and that it did not cause the injury, that the charge of negligence in improperly operating a motor vehicle was barred. The two officers were both on duty at the time, and acting within the course and scope of their employment, so the courts could not assign fault to Clark for the events that took place. Any benefits to Rodriguez would come from workers’ compensation and not from Officer Clark. Rodriguez appealed the Superior Court’s decisions. The Connecticut Appellate Court upheld the initial judgment, agreeing with the points that the lower court had made.