California law follows a theory of liability for the owner of a dog that bites someone known as “strict liability.” “Strict liability” means that regardless of the owner’s prior knowledge/lack of prior knowledge of the viciousness of his/her dog, regardless of whether the dog ever bit someone before, and regardless of whether the owner warned/failed to warn the victim of the dog’s propensity to bite, the owner will automatically be held liable if their dog bites someone. There is no such thing as the “one bite rule” in California under a strict liability theory. If your dog bites someone, you are liable, subject to a few defenses (See Dog Bite/Attack Defenses). See California Civil Code Section 3342 for the language of California’s “Strict Liability” statute. However, there is an important exception to this very strict rule. The exception is known as the “Veterinarian’s Rule.” The veterinarian’s rule states that if the victim of a dog bite is one who is a professional trained to handle dogs (e.g., a veterinarian, groomer, kennel employee, etc.) and the dog was within the victim’s exclusive control, custody and care, then such a victim cannot recover under a “strict liability” theory because that victim inherently assumed the risk of being bitten as a routine consequence of his/her job. The victim would have to pursue his/her claims under a negligence theory of liability (discussed below). Focus, though, on the very specific requirements of the “veterinarian’s rule”: (1) The victim must be a professional trained to work with dogs (i.e., it would be hard to claim that a friend you pay to walk your dog is a trained professional) and (2) the dog must be within the exclusive custody of the victim (i.e., if a groomer is approaching a dog to place the dog within his/her custody but the dog bites before the groomer is able to do so, then this required element of the “veterinarian’s rule” has not been met, because attempting to place a dog within one’s custody is not the same as actually placing the dog within one’s custody).

• In Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, the court found that if a landlord or his agent had actual knowledge of a tenant’s dog’s viciousness and could have removed that dog before it bit someone then the landlord can be held liable. The court held that “a duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities. Because the harboring of pets is such an important part of our way of life and because the exclusive possession of rented premises normally is vested in the tenant, we believe that actual knowledge and not mere constructive knowledge is required. For this reason we hold that a landlord is under no duty to inspect the premises for the purpose of discovering the existence of a tenant’s dangerous animal; only when the landlord has actual knowledge of the animal, coupled with the right to have it removed from the premises, does a duty of care arise.” Keep in mind that landlord liability can be found where the bite happens off of the rented property.

 

• In Donchin v. Guerrero (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1832, the plaintiff was bitten by a tenant’s dog approximately four blocks from the property. The plaintiff sought recovery from both the tenant and the landlord. The court stated: “If the dog is taken on a leash by its owner, off the premises, prevention of an attack by the dog may be beyond the landlord’s control. But if the dog escapes the landlord’s property because of defects in that property, the landlord is liable for the off-site injuries.” Thus, as mentioned above, a landlord must repair dilapidations on the property that may allow a dog to escape and cause injury, if not, he may be liable for damages caused by the dog.