The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Minnesota State Patrol can be sued under the state's dog-bite statute, reversing a lower court decision that had granted the agency immunity from such claims.
The court held that Minnesota Statutes section 347.22, the state's strict liability dog-bite law, "plainly, clearly, and unmistakably waives sovereign immunity for claims brought under the statute." The decision allows Christina Berrier to proceed with her lawsuit against the State Patrol after she was injured by a police dog during what she described as an unprovoked attack.
Justice Margaret Chutich wrote the majority opinion, with Justices Paul Procaccini and Chief Justice Natalie Hudson dissenting. Justice Anne McKeig took no part in the decision.
The case stems from an incident involving Berrier and a Minnesota State Patrol canine. Berrier filed suit under Minnesota's dog-bite statute, which imposes strict liability on dog owners for injuries caused by their animals. The State Patrol moved to dismiss the claim, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity, the legal doctrine that generally shields government entities from lawsuits unless immunity is specifically waived.
The district court initially denied the State Patrol's motion to dismiss, finding that the dog-bite statute did apply to government entities. However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed that decision in a precedential opinion last year, concluding that the State Patrol retained its sovereign immunity protection.
In *Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol*, the appeals court had ruled that the dog-bite statute did not contain sufficiently clear language to waive the state's immunity from suit. That decision protected the State Patrol from liability under the strict liability provisions of Minnesota Statutes section 347.22.
The Minnesota Supreme Court's reversal Wednesday marks a significant shift in how the state's immunity doctrine applies to cases involving police dogs. The court found that the Legislature's language in the dog-bite statute was clear enough to strip away the traditional protections that government agencies enjoy.
"The language of Minnesota's dog-bite statute plainly, clearly, and unmistakably waives sovereign immunity for claims brought under the statute," the court wrote in its syllabus.
Minnesota's dog-bite law creates strict liability for dog owners, meaning victims do not need to prove negligence or that the owner knew the dog was dangerous. Under strict liability, owners are responsible for injuries their dogs cause regardless of the circumstances, with limited exceptions.
The question before the court was whether this strict liability extends to government entities like the State Patrol when their working dogs injure someone. Government agencies traditionally enjoy sovereign immunity, which protects them from most lawsuits unless the Legislature has clearly indicated that immunity should not apply.
Courts require that any waiver of sovereign immunity be expressed in clear, unambiguous language. The State Patrol had argued that the dog-bite statute did not meet this standard and that the agency should retain its immunity protection.
Berrier was represented by attorneys Jeremy R. Stevens, Grant M. Borgen, and Matthew B. De Jong from Bird, Stevens & Borgen, P.C. in Rochester. The state was represented by Attorney General Keith Ellison and Assistant Attorney General Michael Goodwin.
The Minnesota Association for Justice participated as amicus curiae, represented by attorney Matthew J. Barber from Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben, P.A. in Minneapolis.
The Supreme Court's decision reverses the Court of Appeals ruling and remands the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings. This means Berrier's lawsuit can now proceed on its merits, with the State Patrol no longer protected by sovereign immunity under the dog-bite statute.
The ruling could have broader implications for how government agencies that use working dogs handle liability issues. Law enforcement agencies across Minnesota use canines for various purposes, including drug detection, tracking suspects, and crowd control.
The decision also reflects the ongoing tension between government immunity protections and statutory schemes designed to compensate injury victims. While sovereign immunity traditionally protects government entities from lawsuits, legislatures can choose to waive that protection in specific circumstances.
The case file number is A22-1545, and the opinion was filed July 17, 2024. The matter originated in the Court of Appeals before reaching the state's highest court for final resolution.