Nicholas Lynum v. Detroit Police Department (Mich. Ct. App., 2023, unpublished)
Facts
Officer Golembiewski, a Detroit police officer and K-9 handler, took his assigned police dog, Ben, to a veterinary hospital for a routine check-up.
At arrival and during the exam, Ben was muzzled and leashed.
Because Ben was too large for the exam table, Golembiewski restrained Ben on the floor (putting an arm around his neck) while the veterinary technician attempted to draw blood from the dog’s leg.
When the technician released Ben’s leg (upon failed draws), Ben “spun around,” slipped the muzzle, lunged, and bit the technician’s arm.
Golembiewski contended he called the dog off, but the proximity made it impossible to prevent the bite.
Lynum (the technician) sued under Michigan’s dog-bite statute (MCL 287.351) and alleged gross negligence in failure to restrain the dog properly, failure to use a better muzzle, leash, or restraint methods.
Issues on Appeal
Was Officer Golembiewski acting in the course of his employment (I.e., within his official duties) when the incident occurred, thereby potentially invoking governmental immunity?
If so, did Golembiewski’s actions amount to gross negligence, which would negate immunity under Michigan law?
Did Lynum present a genuine issue of material fact to survive summary disposition?
Holding & Reasoning
Acting in Course of Employment / Governmental Immunity
The Court of Appeals held that Golembiewski was acting in the course of his employment. The Court noted:He was on duty, in uniform, using a police vehicle to transport Ben.
Caring for and maintaining the health of a K-9 is part of a dog handler’s official responsibilities.
Because of that, immunity under Michigan’s governmental immunity statute applied (absent gross negligence).Gross Negligence / No Genuine Dispute
The court further found that Lynum failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a factual dispute regarding gross negligence. The reasoning included:Golembiewski had taken precautionary measures: the dog was muzzled, leashed, and restrained during the exam, and the technique used was “standard procedure.”
Lynum’s arguments that Golembiewski should have used a stronger muzzle, shorter leash, or alternative restraint methods at most reflect ordinary negligence, not the level of gross negligence required to defeat governmental immunity.
Gross negligence in Michigan must show conduct so reckless that it evidences a substantial lack of concern for whether injury would result.
The court concluded Lynum’s evidence did not reach that threshold.Because no genuine factual dispute remained, summary disposition in favor of Golembiewski was proper. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal.
Significance & Takeaways
The case illustrates how handling K-9 medical care, even off the street in a veterinary setting, can still be considered part of an officer’s official duties, thus invoking government immunity protections.
It underscores the high bar for plaintiffs to overcome governmental immunity via gross negligence, especially in dog-bite contexts involving law enforcement animals.
Decisions about muzzle strength, leash length, or restraint technique—even if disputed—are often deemed matters of ordinary negligence, rather than gross negligence, unless the facts indicate a willful or reckless disregard of known risk.
The case serves as a caution to would-be litigants that, to survive summary dismissal, they must present evidence strong enough to show that the officer’s conduct went well beyond mere carelessness.
