Father injured too, but Colorado liability limit keeps lawyers from taking their case
CASTLE ROCK, Colorado––The injustice to victims inherent in current dog bite and civil liability law has seldom been more blatantly illustrated than in the case of Nicholas and Lily Dean, father and daughter, spotlighted by Michael Abeyta for CBS Colorado on August 22, 2026.
The case might have already been familiar to ANIMALS 24-7 readers. As we reported on August 14, 2025, a Douglas County, Colorado jury on August 4, 2025 found former Jefferson County sheriff’s deputy Zachary Oliver not guilty of two misdemeanor charges of unlawful ownership of a dangerous dog, causing injury.
Oliver’s Belgian Malinois K9, named Ragnar, in August 2024 escaped from Oliver’s home, and jumped a five-foot fence to crash a birthday party next door for two-year-old twins, one of whom was Lily Dean.
“According to a Castle Rock Police report,” recounted Spencer Soicher for KUSA television in Denver, “Oliver had placed Ragnar in an outdoor kennel after the dog urinated indoors, but the animal escaped through an inadequately secured latch, jumped the fence, and first attacked an inflatable beach ball, before turning on the children.”
Lily sustained serious injuries
“One of the twins, Lily, “sustained serious injuries,” Soicher summarized, “including a puncture fracture to her right femur that was audible when it occurred, according to district attorney George Brauchler. Nicholas Dean, her father, suffered puncture wounds to his right bicep and cuts on his fingers while attempting to separate the dog from his daughter.”
Oliver was found not guilty, Soicher explained, “after his defense team successfully argued he was immune from prosecution under state law because he was technically on duty as a K9 handler, even while at home.”
(See Two off-duty police dogs kept at homes wreak havoc in rural Colorado.)
The jury verdict amounted to a finding that the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, rather than Oliver, had primary liability for the unprovoked attack.
(Fox 31 screenshot from video)
“Jefferson County has refused to help”
Jefferson County, Colorado, at a glance, appears to be a deep-pockets defendant, likely quick to settle a lawsuit that would presumably involve insured damages.
However, updated Michael Abeyta, the Dean family two years after the attack “has accrued $300,000 in medical bills.
“Despite a promise to support the family after the attack,” Abeyta reported, Nicholas Dean “says Jefferson County has refused to help.”
Affirmed Nicholas Dean, on camera, “We’ve received no help from the Jeffco Sheriff’s Department.”
(Screenshot from Fox 31 video)
No lawyer will take the case
“CBS Colorado reached out to the sheriff’s department, which said it does not have a statement to contribute,” continued Abeyta.
The Dean family “considered a civil lawsuit,” Abeyta mentioned, “but they say no lawyer will take their case on a contingency basis, and they don’t want to rack up more debt.
“Now the family is reaching out to the community for help through an online fundraiser.”
Dog Bite Law attorney and dogbitelaw.com blogger Kenneth M. Phillips, the senior legal specialist addressing dog attacks worldwide, shared with ANIMALS 24-7 his thoughts about that.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Lily has suffered life-changing injuries
by Kenneth M. Phillips
Lily Dean has suffered life-changing injuries.
Based on what has been publicly reported, it is reasonable to expect that her future medical care, therapy, rehabilitation, and related needs could cost $1 million or more over her lifetime.
That is before putting any value on her pain and suffering, disability, impairment, disfigurement, and the other consequences of being catastrophically injured at two years old.
The obvious defendant is the governmental entity that owned the police dog. But Colorado law puts a cap on the damages that an injured person can recover from a governmental defendant.
For an injury occurring when Lily was attacked, that cap is $424,000.
That $424,000 is not merely a limit on pain and suffering. It is a limit on the total recovery.
Lily’s past medical expenses, future medical expenses, rehabilitation, therapy, disability, impairment, disfigurement, pain and suffering, and other compensatory damages all have to fit under the same cap.
The economics of bringing a case
The economics of bringing such a case are devastating. In my experience as a trial lawyer, an attorney pursuing a catastrophic injury case against a police department could easily have to advance more than $100,000 in out-of-pocket litigation expenses.
Depending upon the experts, discovery, depositions, motions, and trial preparation required, those expenses could reach $250,000.
Now do the arithmetic. The most Lily ordinarily could recover from the governmental defendant is $424,000. A one-third attorney’s fee would be approximately $141,000. Add $100,000 in litigation expenses, and approximately $241,000 of the recovery is gone.
If litigation expenses reach $250,000, almost the entire recovery is consumed by the attorney’s fee and the cost of obtaining the recovery.
Lily needs the money
And Lily is the person who needs the money. She is the catastrophically injured child who may require $1 million or more just for her future medical care and related needs.
That is why the damages cap does more than reduce Lily’s compensation. It can prevent her from obtaining justice in the first place.
Our civil justice system depends upon private attorneys who are willing to finance cases on behalf of injured people. The lawyer advances the money, assumes the risk of losing it, performs the work, and gets paid only if there is a recovery.
When the legislature caps the potential recovery at an amount that can be largely consumed by the cost of bringing the case, it destroys the economic mechanism that gives an injured person access to the courts.
What about a claim against the K9 handler?
There is one possible avenue that requires further investigation. Colorado law treats certain claims against an individual governmental employee differently. If the evidence establishes the necessary facts, there might also be a viable claim against Oliver, the dog’s handler.
But that possibility does not solve the immediate problem. Determining whether such a claim exists requires an attorney to investigate Ragnar’s history, obtain government records, determine what Oliver knew about the dog, examine the adequacy of the dog’s containment, take depositions, retain experts, and litigate the case.
That requires still more work and still more money, with no assurance that the investigation will uncover the evidence necessary to establish personal liability against him.
(Screenshot from Fox 31 video)
Terrible dilemma
This creates a terrible dilemma for Lily and her family. They need a lawyer to conduct the investigation that might establish a claim beyond the governmental damages cap. But the cap makes it economically irrational for many lawyers to invest the money necessary to conduct that investigation.
There is no public ombudsman who will take over Lily’s civil case. There is no government fund that will give her lawyers $100,000 or $250,000 to investigate and prosecute it. The American civil justice system relies upon private lawyers to provide that money and assume that risk.
That is why Colorado’s damages cap is the 900-pound gorilla in Lily’s case. The cap does not reduce the severity of her injuries. It does not reduce the cost of her future medical care. It does not make the lawsuit cheaper to prosecute. It simply limits what the governmental defendant must pay.
This is not justice
The result is that a two-year-old child can suffer catastrophic, lifelong injuries from a government-owned dog, need $1 million or more for her future care, and nevertheless find herself unable even to hire the lawyer she needs to put the blame where it belongs and obtain the money she will need for the rest of her life.
(Beth Clifton photo/collage)
That is not justice.
It is the predictable consequence of a law that places an arbitrary ceiling on the value of a catastrophically injured child’s life and future.
Please donate to help our work:
www.animals24-7.org/donate
Discover more from Animals 24-7
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And this was not a case of an officer directing his dog to attack…it was a LOOSE dog going onto private property and attacking a CHILD! That is clearly an illegal act! PERIOD. So, how isn’t that a clear example of a DOG OUT OF CONTROL and thus the officer or the police department is clearly responsible for what happened to that child…a very serious injury.
“…technically on duty as a K-9 handler…”
But he wasn’t handling it, was he?
Thanking you for bringing this to our attention, and wondering where empathy, compassion, and common decency has gone.
Handler was negligent by not ensuring his dog was securely contained. That should be reason enough for the system to favor the family and do right by them. What a horrible situation that does nothing to create trust and respect for Jefferson County’s law enforcement and court system.
Thanks. Quite sad. And its a trained Belgian Malinois police dog!
I can’t recall when I’ve heard a more outrageously wrong situation. Shame on that jury. And what happened to the dog?
There needs to be a high-profile lawyer SOMEWHERE who will step up take this child’s case pro bono.