Case Background
On August 13, 2022, Brian L. Lanoue, a Griswold resident and political candidate, canvassed voters in Preston, Connecticut. He rode with a campaign volunteer, Lucas Johnson, who drove him to homes in the area. Around midday, they entered the driveway of Paul Schulz and Deborah Savage at 371 Route 165. Their property appeared open, with no signs restricting solicitors or canvassers.
Lanoue stepped out of the vehicle, walked to the front door, and then moved toward the rear deck when he saw people standing there. On the deck were two large dogs owned by Schulz and Savage. As he approached, the dogs barked and jumped against the deck fencing. According to Lanoue, they either broke through or jumped over it. He turned and ran for safety but fell hard on the ground, landing on his right side. The fall left him badly injured.
Cause
Lanoue claimed the dogs’ aggressive actions caused him to flee and fall. He said Schulz and Savage were responsible as owners and keepers of the dogs under Connecticut’s strict liability dog statute, Section 22-357. His complaint argued that their dogs created the dangerous situation that led to his injuries.
Injury
The fall inflicted serious harm. Lanoue dislocated his right shoulder and sustained what doctors described as a large displaced Bankart lesion of the shoulder joint. He suffered labral tearing from multiple positions around the shoulder, damage to the posterior and superior glenoid labrum, and a Hill-Sachs lesion. His injuries required emergency treatment, extended physical therapy, and long-term care.
Doctors warned he faced future complications, including post-traumatic arthritis. He would likely need two total shoulder replacements in his lifetime, each requiring months of recovery and therapy. His injuries also affected his right elbow and knee. He described ongoing pain and restrictions on daily activities. He said he could no longer engage in many physical and professional activities that once defined his life.
Damages
Lanoue claimed medical bills, therapy costs, and future expenses. He asserted he lost wages and earning capacity. His injuries, he said, caused emotional distress and permanent disability. His complaint placed damages above $15,000, exclusive of interest and costs. He expected significant future expenses tied to surgeries, therapy, and inability to work during recovery.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Plaintiff’s Side
Lanoue’s attorney, Frank A. Manfredi of Cotter, Greenfield, Manfredi & Lenes, P.C., presented the case. He argued the law placed responsibility squarely on the Defendants as dog owners. He reminded the jury that Connecticut’s statute required owners to pay for injuries caused by their dogs, regardless of prior knowledge of aggression.
Manfredi painted a picture of a community leader simply doing his job, lawfully canvassing without trespassing or provoking animals. He stressed that no “No Soliciting” signs appeared on the property. He said Lanoue approached openly, observed people on the deck, and attempted to speak with them. The sudden, aggressive behaviour of the dogs forced him to flee.
Manfredi detailed the injuries through medical testimony. He said the damage to Lanoue’s shoulder would shadow him for life, forcing multiple surgeries and ongoing therapy. He called the injury “life-changing” for a man in public service, whose ability to engage with the community depended on his physical health.
Defendant’s Side
The defense, represented by Patrick M. Conway and Matthew G. Conway of Conway Stoughton LLC, denied responsibility. They filed special defenses that placed blame on Lanoue. They argued he might have provoked the dogs by teasing or tormenting them. They also raised the defense of trespass, claiming that if Lanoue had no lawful right to be on the property, he could not recover under Connecticut’s dog statute.
The defense disputed the account of the dogs breaking free. They denied their pets knocked down fencing or jumped over it. They also downplayed the connection between the dogs’ actions and Lanoue’s fall. They said his injuries stemmed from his own decision to run, not from a direct dog attack.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Brian L. Lanoue
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Frank A. Manfredi
Defendant(s): Paul Schulz and Deborah Savage
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Patrick M. Conway | Matthew G. Conway
Claims Asserted
Negligence and Statutory Liability -Lanoue claimed Schulz and Savage bore liability under Connecticut General Statutes §22-357. He argued their dogs’ aggression directly caused his fall and injuries.
Defense Arguments
Provocation
The Defendants argued Lanoue might have teased or provoked the dogs, which would bar recovery.
Trespass
They claimed he entered parts of the property without permission. If true, that would also shield them under the statute.
Injury Dispute
They questioned whether the dogs caused the fall or whether Lanoue’s injuries stemmed from unrelated factors.
Jury Verdict
On July 16, 2025, the jury delivered its decision. After hearing both sides, the panel ruled in favor of the Defendants, Paul Schulz and Deborah Savage. The jury rejected Lanoue’s claims and awarded him no damages.
Court Documents
