Eduardo Diaz v. Stephane Paquette Dog Bite Defense Verdict
Table of Contents
Case Background
This legal dispute began following an incident on April 21, 2022, in Hamden, Connecticut. Eduardo Diaz, an officer with the Hamden Police Department, responded to a call for emergency assistance that led him to the rear yard of a residence located at 71 Huntington Circle. While the officer performed his duties within the scope of his employment, a large dog suddenly charged toward him. In a frantic attempt to avoid the charging animal, Diaz slipped on the grass and suffered a significant fall.
Cause
The lawsuit rested on the Connecticut Dog Bite Statute, C.G.S. Section 22-357, which generally holds dog owners or keepers liable for damage caused by their animals. Diaz alleged that the dog’s aggressive behavior directly caused his fall and subsequent physical trauma. He maintained that at the time of the encounter, he was not trespassing, nor had he teased, tormented, or abused the animal in any way that would have provoked the charge.
Injury
The fall resulted in a variety of serious and potentially permanent physical injuries. Diaz specifically identified trauma to his left arm, which included bicipital tendinosis, a partial acute rotator cuff tear, and AC joint osteoarthritis. Beyond the arm injuries, the officer reported damage to his back and neck, along with a contusion of the thorax. The physical pain was accompanied by emotional distress, anxiety, and loss of sleep. Diaz further claimed that the incident impaired his mobility and hindered his ability to enjoy his usual recreational activities.
Damages Sought
In his legal filing, Diaz sought monetary compensation for the losses he sustained. These claims included past and future medical expenses for hospital care, diagnostic testing, and physical therapy. Additionally, he sought recovery for lost wages and a diminished capacity to earn a living in the future due to the lasting nature of his injuries. The official statement regarding the demand indicated that the amount in controversy exceeded $15,000.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The litigation moved through the Superior Court at Meriden under the J.D. of New Haven. Following the initial complaint filed in July 2023, the Defendants responded by contesting the version of events presented by the officer.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Eduardo Diaz
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jonathan H. Dodd
Defendant(s): Stephane Paquette | Andrew Knott
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Thomas P. Mullaney III
Claims
The Plaintiff’s strategy involved two distinct counts, each targeting a different individual believed to be responsible for the dog. The first count addressed Stephane Paquette, identifying him as the owner and keeper of the animal. The second count named Joyce Dougherty under the same premise. Diaz argued that because he was performing police duties and had not provoked the animal, the statutory liability for the dog's behavior fell squarely on these Defendants.
Defense
The Defendants presented a unified front in their response to the allegations. While they acknowledged that the case fell under the dog bite statute, they denied the specific claims regarding the incident and the extent of the injuries. Most notably, the defense introduced a Special Defense. They argued that the dog had engaged in behavior that was merely passive, innocent, or involuntary. By citing previous Connecticut case law, specifically Atkinson v. Santore, the defense claimed that the animal's actions did not meet the legal threshold for liability. They essentially contended that if the dog had not actively attacked or behaved in a way that legally constituted conduct under the statute, the owners could not be held responsible for the officer's slip and fall.
Jury Verdict
The trial culminated on October 9, 2025, after the jury had reviewed the evidence and heard the arguments from both sides. The jury, led by foreperson Herbert M. Bailey, reached a unanimous conclusion regarding the liability of the Defendants.
The jury found in favor of the Defendants, Stephane Paquette and Andrew Knott, and against the Plaintiff, Eduardo Diaz. This verdict meant that the jury did not find the Defendants legally responsible for the injuries Diaz had sustained during the 2022 incident. The final outcome resulted in no monetary award for the Plaintiff, effectively ending the pursuit of damages against the dog's owners.
Court Documents