A dog bite can be a serious, painful and frightening
event. Any dog, even normally friendly
dogs, can become frightened or confused under the right circumstances and turn
on the nearest person. The result can be
severe injuries. Medical bills can pile
up quickly and injuries can cause a dog bite victim to lose time and work, as
well as the income they would have earned for that time. Even after the injuries have healed, dog bite
victims can be left with disfiguring scars and missing digits or even limbs if
the incident is severe.The
attorneys at Andres, Andres & Moore, LLP can help you obtain the maximum
recovery for your injuries. This
includes compensation for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering,
disfigurement and emotional distress.
Below you will find a brief discussion of some of the basic issues related to California law regarding dog bites. If
you or someone close to you has been the victim of a dog bite, call us to
receive a free telephone consultation.
A. Liability for Dog Bites
In California, the owner or keeper of a dog who bites another person may be liable for the damage caused by the bite under either a statutory "strict liability" theory or under general negligence principles.
1. Strict Liability California Civil Code section 3342(a)
imposes liability for a dog bite on the owner of the dog regardless of the
owner's knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities as long as the bite
occurred in a public place or if the victim was lawfully present on private
property. The remaining sections of the
statute provide certain exemptions for military and police dogs. The statute is reproduced below. Although the statute imposes strict liability
for bites occurring when the victim is lawfully present on private property or
bites occurring in a public place, it does not make the dog owner liable in all
circumstances. All strict liability does
is eliminate any requirement that the owner have prior knowledge of a dog's
dangerous propensities. The owner still
has legal defenses available to him. For
example, if the victim entered the area where the dog was kept without the
owner's knowledge or permission and/or was teasing or annoying the dog prior to
the bite, the owner may be able to escape liability in whole or in part. As well, if the bite victim is a veterinarian
or veterinary assistant who voluntarily undertakes to care for or board the
dog, the victim may be held to have voluntarily assumed the risk of being
bitten and recovery may be denied. (SeeNelson v. Hall (1985) 165 Cal.
App. 3d 709) The assumption of risk
defense may not apply if the dog owner conceals a known danger from the vet,
though.
2. Negligence
In
cases where the strict liability statute does not apply, common law principles
of negligence might still render the dog owner liable in whole or in part for
injuries caused by the dog. If the dog's
owner has knowledge that the dog is dangerous or vicious and that other people
may encounter the dog the owner must take reasonable precautions to ensure the
dog does not attack or bite those it comes in contact with. (SeeBulow v. Dawn Patrol (1963) 216 Cal. App. 2d 721) Defenses such as assumption of risk or
contributory negligence are available to a dog owner in actions based upon
negligence and can be used to reduce or eliminate the owner's liability to the
victim.
B. Statute of Limitations
A lawsuit based upon a dog bite injury is
considered a claim for personal injury, and is thus governed by the same
statute of limitations. (Pritchard v.
Sharp (1974) 41 Cal. 3d 530) For
personal injury claims, the statute of limitations in California is two years from the date of the
injury giving rise to the claim. (California
Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1)