The Landscape of California Dog Bite Laws
California’s dog bite laws impose strict liability on dog owners if their dog attacks and injures another person or animal. The law generally requires the dog owner to pay damages to the injured person or animal’s owner if the victim suffered injuries and the dog was on public property (including private property where it had permission to be, such as when visiting someone’s home). California Civil Code section 3342 codifies this dog-bite statute.
Civil Code section 3342 sets forth the basic provisions of California dog bite laws. California law imposes strict liability on the owner of a dog for damages sustained by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a place where he or she is permitted to be, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness. Notably, the statute does not use the term "attacked" but rather "bite." Some courts have interpreted the statute’s language to mean the injuries had to be caused by a bite but other courts have found the statute covers "attacks." As a practical matter, both "attacked" and "bite" are used by lawyers to describe the injuries inflicted on a person or animal .
In the context of dogs fighting, courts have also held the statute applies to injuries caused to the owner who is trying to separate his or her dog from the attacking dog, to bystanders who intervene, or to the attacking dog, and that the term "bite" was intended to include not only injuries caused by the teeth but also injuries from other causes, such as scrapes or scratches. In Bennett, the dog didn’t bite Butler but "scratched" and bruised her. The court of appeal found that the statute applied as Butler’s injuries "resulted from an attack by" Bennett’s dog. Other courts describing a dog attack similarly have said a biting dog must be "vicious and mischievous" but it is not completely clear what that means. Some courts describing a "mischievous" dog must have a "predator[ial]" disposition or a "savage nature…"
Regardless of the precise terminology, California law focuses on the damages suffered as a result of the dog attack, but allows defenses such as provocation by the plaintiff, comparative fault on the part of the plaintiff or others, or assumption of risk.
The Legalities of Dog-on-Dog Attacks
When a dog attacks another dog, the question of liability becomes complicated. Dog fights and attacks on other dogs are tragically common. But when it comes to determining who is liable for a dog attacking another dog, the answer is not always so clear. Issues of strict liability, negligence, or negligent supervision can all come into play in adjudicating liability for these increasingly common dog attacks.
In California, dog owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog. This means that the injured party need not prove the fault of the dog owner in order to recover for damages caused by the dog. When the issue at hand is whether a dog owner is liable for injuries caused by his dog to a person other than the dog owner, it is clear that liability for the injuries of a person still lies with the dog owner, and the injured party can recover from the dog owner without having to prove fault. However, this rule does not apply when a dog has injured another dog. The injured party must rely instead on negligence or negligence per se, the latter applying in a situation in which a statute or regulation has been violated.
For example, in Allum v. Balani, a Great Dane was attacked by two Rottweilers. When the injured party sued the defendants, the dog owners’ insurance company argued that the injury was covered under a provision for animal liability, and that the insureds were entitled to coverage. The court found that the dog owners were not entitled to coverage, because their insurance did not cover injuries caused by an "owned canine" that were excluded from coverage. Under California Civil Code section 3342, a dog owner is strictly liable for injury to a person caused by his dog. Because civil code only imposes strict liability on dog owners for causing injury to a person, and makes no such reference to injury to a dog, the court held that the dog owners could not be holstered under the insurance policy’s coverage for animal liability. The court stated that the dog owners could recover from dog liability insurance only if the dog’s liability was imputed to the dog owners as a result of a statute. Similar decisions have held that where a dog owner negligently allows his dog to attack another dog, the dog owner is not liable under dog bite codes because those codes only address injuries to human beings, not to other animals. Liability in dog-on-dog attacks thus rests in negligence.
When injury is cause to a dog, however, California Civil Code section 3342(b) does provide strict liability for damages that occurred due to a violation of Municipal Code section 57.96. Section 57.96 prohibits a person from having an animal (including dogs) attack another animal. Municipal Code section 57.96 states "[N]o dog shall be allowed to injure, chase, or kill any other animal…" which constitutes a violation and renders the dog owner strictly liable for any injury caused to a dog. Section 3342(b) also states that the dog owner is not liable if the injured party provoked the injury, although the injured party is permitted to invoke strict liability without having to prove fault on the part of the dog owner. Other courts have held that the dog owner is not liable for the injury if the injured dog owner was aware of the dog’s aggressive nature and thus had duty to avoid the injury.
Another avenue for liability for dog owners in injuries caused by their dogs is negligent supervision or improper training of those dogs. California Civil Code section 3342(a) provides that "The owner of a dog that attacks a person is liable for damages suffered by the person attacked." Courts have held that injury caused by an owner’s negligent supervision or training of his dog is actionable under Section 3342(a). In Quigley v. Douglas, a 16-year-old girl fell and sustained injuries while trying to prevent her dog’s aggressive attack on another dog. The Appellate court held that the girl stated a valid cause of action for negligent supervision by her mother.
While strict liability does not apply to dog-on-dog attacks in California, liability may be imposed under a variety of other theories. Certainly the owner of a dog that engages in a fight with another dog may be found to be negligent, and thus held liable for damages, even absent strict liability. Also, liability may be established under Civil Code section 3342 if the attack in question was the result of a violation of an ordinance not incombatable with American legal tradition.
What a Dog Owner Can Do Legally
In California, the legal recourse for dog owners whose pets have been injured by another dog quite often starts and ends with small claims court. Pursuant to California Civil Code section 3342.5, a dog is not permitted to run at large; therefore, if the dog causing injury to your dog is running at large and attacking your dog, you may be entitled to compensation for veterinary bills and other damages.
A civil court may award damages for personal injury to your dog if the veterinarian treating your dog bills you directly for services rendered or if you otherwise have to pay out of your own pocket for those services. A dog owner who sustains personal injury due to the actions of another dog or from attempting to recapture their own dog may also be entitled to pain and suffering or emotional distress damages. Certain dog owners are even entitled to damages for loss of companionship against other dog owners whose dogs have attacked and caused injury to the complaining dog’s owner. [See, e.g. Tran v. Landmark [‘7) Inc. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 531].
There are two types of damages potentially available when one dog attacks another and results in damages to the owners of any or both dogs. Economic damages compensate you for the actual losses you sustained, such as veterinary bills, medications, treatments, time off work to care for the dog, costs of hiring someone to look after your dog while you are at work, or moving into a new home that permits pets. Pain and suffering damages may be available if you can prove the injury suffered by your dog resulted in physical pain, emotional distress, anxiety, depression, or other negative emotional effects. You may also be able to claim damages for loss of enjoyment of life, such as loss of companionship or society.
When your dog has been attacked, bitten, or injured by another dog, you should immediately report it to animal control. The initial report will help to establish the facts of the incident and determine whether the dog who attacked your dog is running at large, whether the injuries were caused by the other dog’s owner’s negligence, whether there is anything damaged or personal property lost in the attack, etc. Once this information has been established, you may proceed with a small claims lawsuit to recover damages due to the injury to your dog and the resulting damages.
Small claims court is limited to lawsuits involving no more than $10,000 for individuals or $5,000 for business entities, including corporations, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. If your dog’s injuries and other resultant damages exceed those amounts, you may pursue a civil lawsuit for personal injury as well as a claim for damages to property through a small claims lawsuit. A small claims lawsuit need not be filed with the advice of an attorney, and although you may present witnesses on your behalf, you cannot have an attorney represent you in court. Additionally, the CEO of a corporation may file a small claims action without representation of an attorney.
How To Prevent and Limit Liability
To decrease the chances of their own dog being aggressive and incurring liability claims, owners can take preventive measures through appropriate training and socialization techniques. For example, knowing their dog’s behavioral triggers can help owners avoid situations in which their dog might bite. Moreover, properly training a dog on how to respond to others can also help decrease a behavior that reflects poorly on the dog owner. Whether it is in the form of socialization with people or other animals, canine obedience training and a properly trained dog can go a long way in avoiding a dog bite injury or attack and ultimately decreasing potential liability .
Further, because California has a leash law in place, which requires dogs to be on a leash when outside of their owner’s premises (except in specific designated areas), owners should take care at all times to use a leash when taking their dog out of their home or apartment. If walking the dog in public, using a leash of no more than six feet in length will help minimize an owner’s liability if such leash is kept in their control and they are within proximity to the animal. Similarly, some owners may choose to equip their dog with a muzzle in order to further decrease the potential for liability and to protect individuals who might be the target of the animal.
Examples and Current Cases
One example of a court case where a dog owner was not held liable due to the plaintiff’s contributory actions in the attack is Baker v. Rodriguez. In this case, the plaintiff’s four-year-old child had been playing with a friend at a nearby dog park. The plaintiff’s child was reportedly jumping up and down in excitement, after which another dog nearby began to jump up and down also, albeit in a more aggressive manner. The defendant’s owner took the dog to the park but did not keep it leashed, and left the defendant dog with the plaintiff’s which was still playing together. The defendant dog attacked the plaintiff’s four year old child, which resulted in serious physical damage. However, the plaintiff’s child had initiated the process of causing the dog to attack, with no attempts by the owner to control the situation. Even though the park was not specifically a leash free park, the court found that the defendant dog owner was not liable due to the plaintiff’s child’s actions that initiated the attack. In contrast to Baker v. Rodriguez, 2009 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5747 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2009), another case, Stoneback v. Geary, went in favor of the plaintiff. Here, the plaintiff went to a local dog park that was designated as one where dogs do not need to be put on leashes, and where other dogs were known to attack each other. The plaintiff then unleashed the dog, but the dog was unprovoked when it attacked and injured a second dog. The plaintiff sued the dog owner, and the court ruled that the "dog owner possessed a duty to control his dog so as to prevent damage to other animals." Stoneback v. Geary, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 873, 877 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). The plaintiff won the case because his dog was blameless, even in a designated leash free dog park.
Where To Find An Attorney
In California, dog bite and animal attack cases are handled by personal injury attorneys with extensive experience in animal law. While very few attorneys focus a significant portion of their practice on animal law, your personal injury attorney may have worked on a dog bite case before. You should meet with the attorney if for no other reason than to determine whether that attorney will accept your case.
An experienced personal injury attorney will ask you about the incident very quickly. It is important for you to be prepared to answer questions about the incident as lawyers often ask very direct questions about the facts in order to evaluate the information they need to pursue the case. Don’t be surprised if an attorney spends time asking you about how your dog or cat was injured or killed .
You should take notes and treat this part of the meeting as an interview. Not every attorney is going to be the right one for you. Competence is only part of the criteria. You may find that the attorney is condescending or can’t seem to resolve questions that you have. If this is the case, don’t hesitate to walk away and start your search over.
One of the most important findings you need to know about your attorney is whether or not he or she has had success litigating cases similar to yours. When made aware of a problem, competent lawyers will always tell you the truth. So while you should be leery if your attorney tells you that you have a open and shut case, you don’t want to hire someone who doesn’t have the experience and competence necessary to win your case.