Cristina Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol

Owatonna, Minnesota personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a dog-bite claim.



Plaintiff sought to be compensated for the injuries and/or damages she suffered under "Minn. Stat. § 347.22, arising out of injuries she sustained after being attacked by a dog owned by the State Patrol..."



State claimed soverign immunity for claims under the dog-bite statute.





The dog-bite statute provides that, "[i]f a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained." Minn. Stat. § 347.22. Berrier's complaint is not lengthy; it pleads in seven short paragraphs that a State Patrol dog attacked her while visiting a car dealership where she worked in March 2019. Berrier's complaint expressly alleges that "[a]s a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the [State Patrol], [Berrier] sustained serious injuries." The complaint does not expressly reference the dog-bite statute or assert that the State Patrol is strictly liable for Berrier's injuries. But the complaint does plead that the "dog attacked [Berrier] without provocation," an allegation that is relevant to determining liability under the dog-bite statute. See id.



Berrier v. Minn. State Patrol, A22-1545 (Minn. App. Nov 18, 2024)

The court concluded that Berrier adequately pleaded a claim under the dog-bite statute, and we therefore affirm the district court's decision denying dismissal of that claim and remand to the district court for further proceedings on that claim and Berrier's negligence claim.



Affirmed and remanded.