had voluntarily undertaken to restrain his dogs when there was evidence that the injured party, a technician who was at the dog owner’s home to install cable television, expressed concern about the dogs and the dog owner promised to “retain” the dogs if the technician wanted him to do so and stated that he “would take care of it”); see also Abundant Animal Care, LLC, 316 Ga. App. at 196 (2) (“One of the essential elements of [a voluntary-undertaking] claim is reasonable reliance by the injured person upon the voluntary undertaking.”). 20 In her brief, Tackling summarily asserts that there was “some evidence the defendants affirmatively agreed to restrain the dog,” but she provides no record citations to support this conclusory assertion. 21 See Stennette, 316 Ga. App. at 428-29 (1) (b) (<HOLDING>); Abundant Animal Care, LLC, 316 Ga. App. at
holding in case where po lice dog bit plaintiff for approximately fifteen seconds in officers presence that excessive duration of the bite and improper encouragement of a continuation of the attack by officers could constitute excessive force holding that deputies use of a police dog is subject to excessive force analysis holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work holding that the owner of a dog who bit the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment when although the dog had previously jumped on the plaintiff in an aggressive manner the dog did not attempt to bite or scratch and the plaintiff conceded that she was unaware of any prior instance when the dog had bitten a person holding that in 1998 the law was clearly established that excessive duration of a police dog bite and improper encouragement of a continuation of the attack by officers could constitute excessive force