The Thing About California’s Laws for Dog Bites
California’s Dog Bite Laws
As noted above, California is one of the few states to have a strict liability statute for dog bite cases. Specifically, California Civil Code Section 3342 provides as follows:
"The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog . "
Thus, under California law, a dog owner is liable for damages if his or her dog bites someone, even if the dog has never bitten anyone in the past or never showed any tendency to bite someone in the past. This is true even if the bite victim trespassed on the property of the dog owner.
Dogs may also cause injuries in other ways. However, in those cases, the owner has a defense if he or she can prove that the injury-witnessing victim was behaving abnormally or aggressively, thereby provoking the dog to bite or otherwise injure the victim.
When a Dog Bite Means (or Doesn’t Mean) Euthanization
When a dog bite occurs, the consequences can be serious — both for the victim and the animal. In California, a dog that has bitten a person may be subject to euthanasia, but certain conditions must be met.
The first condition that factors into the decision of whether the dog should be euthanized is the severity of the bite on the victim. The personal injury attorneys at The Sampson Law Firm are often contacted by people with dog bites that required medical treatment. Typically, these types of injuries are treated at a hospital or urgent care facility. Most people who have suffered a dog bite also see their primary care physicians after the immediate medical issue is resolved at the emergency room. Sometimes, parties are bitten in such a way that does not require immediate medical attention, but the dog’s owner might be fearful of being charged with a crime, so they take the animal to the animal shelter. A veterinarian examines the dog to ensure the animal does not have rabies and is healthy.
When authorities respond to a call about a dog bite, including officers of the controlling animal agency, local or state police, or sheriff’s deputies, they will interview witnesses and evaluate the scene. The attack is often reported to animal control as part of the investigation. Officials will likely ask the dog owner to present the animal for quarantine and veterinary examination to make sure it is healthy. If the dog is cooperative and it is determined that there was no previous history of bites, animal control may decide not to take any action if the dog is not deemed dangerous. The decision would be made in consultation with the dog’s owner.
The next factor in whether the dog is put down is whether there was a history of prior attacks. If, for example, the dog had previously bitten someone without any provocation, law enforcement and animal control officials would likely make a determination that the dog is dangerous and euthanize the animal. Depending on the circumstances, animal control might decide to institute sterility or spaying to prevent the animal from attacking again.
Perhaps the biggest factor to consider in determining whether the animal will be euthanized is whether the public is at risk. If the dog attacked and injured more than one person, it is likely that the animal will be put down. Similarly, if the bite occurred on private property, meaning none of the witnesses tried to intervene when the dog attacked, animal control might conclude that the animal is dangerous and euthanize the animal. These decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and only after the organization has acquired all appropriate information.
The Legal Process After a Dog Bite Incident
After a dog bite occurs, the case is first reported to animal control or the sheriff’s office. The bite victim is typically informed to contact animal control and/or the sheriff’s office and provide a statement. In the case of a dog bite to a person, the dog’s owner must produce the dog, so a follow-up investigator can look at a possible history of viciousness. Most importantly, if the dog is unvaccinated for rabies, the dog will have to be quarantined for 10 days. Many times, the animal control officer will quarantine the dog on the scene. If the victim is a child and no adult is there to provide a statement, the animal control officer may make a follow-up visit to get a statement. A citation may be issued for any code violations, including background barking, running at large, and bites. This may or may not be an administrative citation (that is issued for code violations). The victim may have to file a complaint with the local animal control agency to begin the process. For bites, they usually ask for a name and address, a statement, and possibly some photographs of what has happened. If the dog is insured, the insurance company may conduct an independent investigation; if no liability is accepted (and many are denied), then the victim or victim’s attorney will need to file a lawsuit to recover money damages.
In the case of a bite to a companion animal, animal control will most likely get involved with a staff member writing a report. If an injury occurred to a companion animal, animal control may look further into it and/or direct the victim to fill out a private criminal complaint. If there is a caption in your area for an incident like this, it will probably take place. If not, an attorney will have to be consulted and retained to file this type of claim. Animal bite cases in California are typically handled through the courts, where animal control will testify about ordinances and cite local law that has been broken. For instance, if there is a leash law and someone was injured by a dog not on a leash, animal control will cite the local code. If the defendants violate ordinances, the premises may be subject to a "forfeiture action" prior to a hearing.
Owner Liabilities for Dog Bites and Defenses to Euthanization
California dog owners’ responsibilities extend beyond the leash and the home enclosure of their furry friends. The law is clear that an owner must take reasonable measures to prevent their dog from biting or injuring a person not on the dog owner’s property. For example, allowing a dog to run unattended in public could subject the owner to liability. It is advisable to keep your dog on a leash unless you are in a designated off-leash area.
The law also makes clear that a dog owner can be liable for the dog’s actions even if the dog is not known to bite or has never bitten anyone. Generally speaking, most dog bite lawyers will tell you that there is no safe breed of dog. It must be shown that the owner had knowledge that the dog would be dangerous. No previous behavior will be found because it hasn’t occurred and the owner is charged with knowing what any other dog of the same breed have been known to do.
California law imposes strict liability on dog owners regardless of the owner’s knowledge of the dog’s past behavior. The law is clear that a victim must prove that the dog caused the injury and that the dog and owner were located in a public place or that the victim was lawfully on private property when the dog caused the injury. California Civil Code §3342 clearly impose liability upon a person who owns, possesses or controls a vicious dog for a dog bite that occurs while the victim is in a public place or lawfully in a private place.
Dog owners may raise affirmative defenses to avoid liability. The most common approaches are assuming the risk and contributory negligence. The rationale behind the assumption of the risk defense is that dog owners should be aware that their animal may bite or cause injury. Owners (or caretakers) must accept some responsibility for keeping their dogs away from risk of exposure to these injuries. The contributory defense helps to balance the liability scheme amongst the dog owner and the injured victim. If either party is determined to have contributed to the injury, then they should share the financial and legal costs of the injury. For example, if the injured person was taunting the dog or was violating some local ordinance, that person may not recover full compensation.
A Word About Breed-Specific Legislation
In California, some cities and counties have passed breed-specific legislation. For dog owners, it can sometimes be difficult to understand whether the laws apply and what they mean. Here are three things to keep in mind about breed-specific legislation: Many municipalities publish a list of breeds considered dangerous, but often indicate that the dangerous breed is the one most likely to cause injury and not a dog belonging to a registered breed group or which fulfills certain breed characteristics. For example, breed-specific laws typically include dogs of mixed or cross-bred varieties of animals included in a breed group. Thus, if a dog owner violated a law pertaining to an "Akita, Rottweiler, or Doberman Pinscher or any mixed breed thereof," the felony charges would not hinge on whether or not the dog owner actually owned an Akita, Rottweiler, or Doberman Pinscher but rather whether or not his dog had physical attributes of an Akita, Rottweiler, or Doberman Pinscher . If an injury has been caused by a dog of a breed known for being particularly aggressive, the resulting case may take on greater national attention, leading to greater media and insurance company interest. Because insurance companies want to avoid paying out claims, they may scrutinize the case more closely when potential damages are significant and when a dog bite is caused by a dog of a purported "dangerous breed." Specific dog breeds, including Rottweilers, pit bull-like dogs, chow chows, Akitas, and St. Bernards are often singled out as dogs more likely to attack. Breed-specific legislation is designed to target owners of dogs who classify into these categories either by virtue of owning one of these breeds or owing a dog who displays the characteristic physical traits of one of these breeds. These laws, however, vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Alternatives to Killing Pets in California
With all the headlines about dogs killing people, too many people overlook that there are alternatives available to euthanasia. The California Department of Public Health states that most bites do not require euthanasia of a dog, and the reasons they will recommend euthanasia include repeated behavior or a rabies risk. The other alternatives must be exhausted first.
Rehabilitation – It is important that any dog who shows a propensity for aggression or attack undergoes evaluation. It is critical that any aggression be observed and addressed by a professional dog trainer or animal behaviorist. Most dogs are not innately aggressive, and any aggression can be addressed with training.
Euthanasia is often automatically recommended, but nowhere in any of the statutes or guidelines is there evidence that there are alternatives available. Clearly the dog must be evaluated and treatment options considered, rather than euthanasia being treated as a matter of course.
Mandatory Training – Mandatory training is often offered as an alternative to euthanasia. If the handler is ordered to complete dog training/canine good citizenship classes those alternatives should be considered. The options also include certificates or proof of training showing that the dog is not a vicious dangerous animal.
Rehoming – A dog does not need to be euthanized just because it is aggressive. Whether the dog is living with a family with young children or a retired couple, the dog does not need to be euthanized. Instead the dog can be removed from the home and rehomed to a family without children, without other animals, or without other triggers for the dog’s behavior. Certain rescues will accept dogs that have been in the shelter or a sanctuary for a certain period of time and these dogs are often temperament tested before being accepted into the program.
Case Law and Real-World Examples
The tragic death of a toddler in South Los Angeles in 2018, as a result of fatal dog bites from a relative’s pet dog, drew attention to the need for stronger regulations on particularly dangerous dog types, like pit bulls. When a mishap like that occurs, an owner can be charged with criminal negligence as well as civil liability for damages, such as in the September 2016 release of Gregory Vilapondo, who had been convicted in July of felony neglect and abuse of his two Jack Russell terriers.
Vilapondo subjected his dogs to a level of neglect so severe that they were found to be riddled with infections, failure to thrive, general health concerns, and a lack of adequate food, water, and veterinary care. While Vilapondo received 180 days in jail and three years’ probation for his failure to maintain animals, the charges could have been much more severe: The incident only occurred because he ignored two nuisance ticket citations issued by Ventura County Animal Services . Worse still, he failed to seek medical attention for the dogs, which would have saved their lives and left him more liable in civil court.
In another example, contrary to both California and federal law, the state of Utah euthanized two dogs that had been involved in dog attacks. "I don’t think that [euthanization] should be an option…It’s a barbaric thing to put a family pet down," said Davis County Animal Control Officer John Phillips, who added that the city "owed the owners that much to find a non-lethal solution."
On the other hand, a somewhat less obvious legal situation arises in 2011, in which postal worker Suzanne Milburn sued dog owners Darren and Maria Zink after a pair of their pit bulls, Carla and Elvis, attacked her. A jury awarded her nearly $900,000 in damages, after considering the fact that the Zink’s had previously been warned three times by the postal service and animal control officers to keep their dogs tied up while outside after previous incidents of attacking postal workers.