Family says cop neighbor’s K-9 attacked their 2-year-old daughter and left them with mammoth medical bills of $300K
A Colorado family says they have been left with roughly $300,000 in medical debt after their police officer neighbour's K-9 dog escaped and mauled their two-year-old daughter during a birthday party. Nick and Bethany Dean's daughter Lily was attacked by Ragnar, a Jefferson County Sheriff's Department dog living next door with handler Deputy Zachary Oliver, in their Castle Rock backyard on 11 August 2024. The case matters because, despite the severity of the child's injuries and the officer's role in the attack, a jury cleared the deputy of criminal liability and the county has refused to cover the family's costs, leaving them to crowdfund the bills themselves.
Lily suffered deep lacerations to her stomach and a punctured femur, while her father Nick sustained injuries to his chest, neck, back and hip after wrestling the dog off her, and he says he now lives with chronic pain and PTSD. Prosecutors charged Oliver, but he was acquitted after arguing his county contract shielded him from criminal liability; he has since left the sheriff's office and the dog has been retired. Jefferson County told the family's lawyer it would not use taxpayer money to settle the claim in the absence of legal liability, and as of Monday the Deans' GoFundMe had raised more than $67,000 towards the roughly $300,000 owed.
- Police K-9 mauled a 2-year-old girl at a Colorado birthday party
- Family faces $300,000 in medical bills; deputy acquitted of criminal charges
- County refuses to pay; GoFundMe has raised over $67,000
New here? Start with this
Colorado couple Nick and Bethany Dean say their two-year-old daughter, Lily, was seriously injured after a police K-9 escaped from next door during a family birthday party. The dog, Ragnar, belonged to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and was kept at home by its handler, Deputy Zachary Oliver, who lived beside the Deans in Castle Rock. The attack happened in August 2024 and left Lily with significant injuries, while her father was also hurt trying to pull the dog off her.
Because Oliver was a serving deputy and Ragnar was a working police dog, the case raises questions about who is responsible when a law enforcement animal causes harm off duty, and whether local government has any obligation to help cover the resulting costs. Oliver faced criminal charges over the incident, while Jefferson County has taken the position that it will not use public funds to pay the family's medical bills unless legal liability is established.
The dispute matters beyond this one family because it touches on how police departments and local authorities handle harm caused by police K-9s, and where responsibility falls between officers, their employers and the public when things go wrong outside of official duties.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for the family argue that a county-owned police dog, under a deputy's control, caused catastrophic injuries to a toddler, and that basic fairness demands the public body responsible for the animal should not leave an innocent family to crowdfund a $300,000 medical bill regardless of whether a criminal jury found the individual deputy blameless. They point out that criminal acquittal reflects a high evidentiary bar for personal culpability, not a finding that the family caused their own misfortune, and that civil or ex gratia compensation systems exist precisely for situations where harm occurs without criminal intent. They would argue that a well-resourced institution absorbing this cost is a fairer outcome than a young family bearing lifelong debt and trauma for an incident entirely outside their control.
The case against
Those defending the county's position argue that public bodies must operate within clear legal and fiscal boundaries, and that taxpayer funds cannot be disbursed to settle claims where a court process, including a jury acquittal, found no legal liability attaches to the officer or, by extension, the department. They would contend that allowing sympathetic circumstances alone to override established liability standards sets a troubling precedent, opening the door to open-ended claims against public budgets without a legal basis, and that the proper remedy for the family lies through civil courts or insurance mechanisms designed for such disputes, not discretionary payouts that bypass due process and accountability to other taxpayers.