Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc.

On appeal for a civil action for damages arising out of an attack by a wolf on a child, the focus was on the correctness of three evidentiary rulings that excluded three separate pieces of evidence. The first was evidence of a note that the employee left on the door of the plaintiff that said “Sophie bit a child that came in our back yard. All has been taken care of.”. The second was a statement by an employee of the defendant who said “Sophie had bit a child that day.” The third was in the form of statements appearing in the records of a board meeting by the defendant’s corporate officers discussing legal aspects of the incident.