Alex Geiger was a police officer in the canine unit of the City of Exeter, California’s Police Department beginning in 2014. When he decided to change jobs in 2016, he purchased a trained police attack dog named Neo with whom he had worked and kept him as a pet. One day, when Geiger was at work, Neo escaped from his backyard and attacked two neighbors, David Fear and Betty Long. Fear was mortally wounded and died three days after the attack. Long suffered a broken pelvis, a dislocated shoulder, a series of related health problems and PTSD. She died in 2023. The survivors of both victims sued.

The survivors sued Geiger and the City of Exeter for negligence because the city did not warn Geiger about the dangers of keeping a trained attack dog as a pet. The city and police department also did not warn Geiger that Neo should be kept in a kennel. A jury in San Luis Obispo found liability for Long’s injuries totaling $12.5 million and awarded $7 million to Fear’s survivors. The damage award was apportioned between the supervisor of the Exeter Police Department’s Canine Unit (42%), its police chief (41.5%) and Geiger (16.5%). The defendants appealed both the judgment and $5,000 in sanctions awarded against defendants’ counsel who had unsuccessfully opposed motions for protective orders.

A unanimous 3-0 panel from Division Six of the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s entire judgment on January 18. An opinion authored by Justice Kenneth Yegan concluded, “…appellants owed no duty to provide a more explicit and robust warning to the officer about the dangerousness of the service dog or the conditions under which it should be kept. Accordingly, we reverse.” He also found that trial court judge Barry T. LaBarbera from the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County did not abuse his discretion when he awarded the sanctions.

Justice Yegan’s opinion began with a lengthy explanation of how attack dogs are purchased, trained, and cared for. He said that Exeter’s Police Department got Neo, a Belgian Malinois, from Jay Brock, the owner of Top Dog Training Center. Neo came with written instructions that explained what should be done during the police officer/dog’s “bonding period” and during the training course. Geiger was told he was to be the only one to feed, groom, care for and give commands to Neo. He also was instructed to keep him “on lead” at all times except when he was in the kennel or on patrol.

Neo was trained to search for narcotics and to apprehend people after hearing a “bite and hold” command. Geiger never had to give Neo this command. When he was not working, Neo often played with Geiger’s other dog, a German Shepard named Rolo.

Geiger purchased Neo when he left Exeter. Neo did not accompany him to his new job in the Grover Beach Police Department because it did not have a canine unit. Even though Neo was no longer working as a police dog, Geiger was told that he “should not be treated as a pet,” because he would continue to be “a potentially dangerous animal.” The Exeter Police, however, did not expressly warn him about any potential danger but told the court that Geiger should have known about it because of his training as a canine handler.

When Geiger purchased Neo, he entered into a sales contract with the Exeter Police Department. The contract said Geiger “agreed to continue the quality of care Neo had been accustomed to and accept that neither the City of Exeter nor the Police K9 Association shall have no further financial liability for Neo.” Geiger also agreed “to hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City of Exeter and the Police K9 Association, from and against any and all cost, loss, expense or liability arising out of my ownership and control of Neo.”

During the trial, Geiger testified that “he did not understand Neo needed to be kept in his kennel and should not be treated as a pet.” Also during the trial, two expert defense witnesses told the court that there were no guidelines for how to treat and care for retired service dogs. In their opinion, they said that Geiger should have been given more training when he purchased Neo.

Yegan then discussed the issue of whether Exeter or its police department owed the plaintiff’s survivors a duty of care which occurs if there is “a special relationship with a foreseeably dangerous third party that entails an ability to control that person’s conduct.” He concluded that no duty of care existed because “appellants were no longer Geiger’s employer and were no longer in a special relationship with him.” The opinion said, “While it is certain that respondents were grievously injured by Neo, the connection between those injuries and appellants’ failure to provide more detailed warnings to Geiger is far from certain.“

He concluded, “… the law does not permit us to impose on appellants a duty to control a former employee’s conduct. There was no reason to foresee his disastrous lack of judgment and common sense. On these facts, we have no choice but to reverse the judgment.”

Geiger, who was found by the trial court to be 16.5% at fault, did not appeal, and Yegan’s opinion did not explain why the judgment against him did not stand, along with the judgment for the City of Exeter.

Appellants filed another appeal, which was based on the timeliness of the case. Yegan also found the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that information relating to the timeliness of respondents’ claims was not crucial to appellants’ case, therefore the sanctions imposed by Judge LaBarbera were appropriate.