Top 1% of Attorneys in CA
CA Lawyer of the Year
Top 10 Injury Attorneys in CA
Founder - CALIFORNIA'S ACCIDENT FORUM
Law Firm of the Year
Top 100 Trial Attorneys in CA
Professor of Personal Injury Law
Dog Bites / Injuries
Theories of Liability for the Dog Owner
- The plaintiff who is seeking damages for injuries resulting from a dog bite under a negligence theory may demonstrate:
- (1) The dog in question had a dangerous propensity for viciousness; (2) The dog owner knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensity; (3) The dog owner failed to adequately warn the victim of the dog’s propensity to bite; and (4) the dog bit the victim. Alternatively, the victim of an injury resulting from the actions of a dog may show (1) the owner owed a duty of care to the victim (i.e., the owner was obligated not to allow her dog to harm the victim – almost always shown); (2) the owner breached that duty (e.g., the owner failed to properly restrain his/her dog on a leash); and (3) the owner’s breach resulted in the dog causing harm to the victim (e.g., an unleashed dog jumped on the victim knocking her down resulting in a broken hip).
- The following cases are helpful resources in establishing the owner’s knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities. In the cases below, the court found that the following facts placed or should have placed the owner with knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities:
- Keeping the dog solely as a “guard dog” and posting a sign that reads “Beware of Dog” – Portillo v. Aiassa (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1135
- Keeping people away from the dog – Northon v. Schultz (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 488.
- The owner’s knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities can be implied by the dog’s: (1) reputation (2) type and size or (3) proving that the dog is regularly chained or muzzled – Smith v. Royer (1919) 181 Cal. 165, 170.
- The owner of the dog told people that his dog may bite them – Bulow v. Dawn Patrol (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 721, 729
Theories of Liability for a Landlord of Property
- 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.
- A commercial landlord may be held liable for a dog bite if he had actual or constructive knowledge of the dog’s propensity for violence before the attack, and could have removed the dog prior to it harming the plaintiff. In Portillo v. Aiassa (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1128, the court remarked: “We hold that a landlord has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the inspection of his commercial property and to remove a dangerous condition, which includes a dog, from the premises, if he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care would have known, the dog was dangerous and usually present on the premises.” A landlord could not escape liability by failing to inspect the property and then asserting that he had no actual knowledge of the vicious dog.
Get In Touch
Recent blog posts on dog related accidents:
Invariably, personal injuries can result from a wide variety of circumstances, such as truck accidents (i.e., big-rig or 18-wheeler accidents), car and auto accidents, motorcycle accidents, slip and fall accidents, trip and fall accidents, and...
The California Vehicle Code (CVC) governs the rules and responsibilities of all persons operating a car, truck, motorcycle or other motor vehicle on California's roads. Below are the top 4 CVC violations and their applicable language. 1) CVC...
In a previous blog post (see Pre-Existing Injuries in a Personal Injury Claim) the 'thin-skulled' plaintiff (otherwise known as the 'egg-shell' victim) was identified as an individual who, because of a unique medical condition or fragile body,...
Following a car accident, motorcycle crash, trucking ('big-rig') accident or other personal injury, it is of utmost importance for the injury victim to provide to his/her lawyer full disclosure of any and all pre-existing injuries, complaints...
In California, the law provides a certain level of protection (in the form of a cause of action) for an individual who is injured while attempting to save, rescue or assist another individual who was injured in a car accident, trucking crash,...
Under California law, anyone who negligently injures another person may be found liable for all damages stemming from such injury. However, simply because someone is found to be at-fault following a car accident, truck crash, motorcycle...
California law imposes financial liability on the owner of a vehicle involved in a car accident, truck accident, motorcycle accident, or other accident involving a motor vehicle, even if the owner was not driving or in the vehicle at the time...
Separate and distinct from a pure negligence cause of action (see Injury Accident Cause of Action? Negligence), a negligence per se cause of action requires, in a nutshell, that the personal injury accident victim prove that the at-fault party violated some sort of...
Following a trucking accident, motorcycle accident, or other car accident, the personal injury victim will pursue a claim against the at-fault party for causing his/her injuries. Assuming the at-fault party was not acting intentionally, the...
California Civil Code Section 377.60 provides a cause of action against an individual or entity who is responsible for the death of a person, often due to a car, truck or motorcycle accident. California imposes a very strict list of those...
Join Our Newsletter
Stay up to date on recent news.