Dog Bites

Dog Bites

Each year in the United States, almost 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs. Within the past two years, Les resolved two dog bite cases. About a fifth of those annual dog bites within the U.S. are serious enough to require medical treatment and in some cases reconstructive surgery. Dogs of all types are responsible for these injuries–even when they do not have a history of being aggressive. In the case where a dog attacks a human, however, the case is relatively easy with respect to the allocation of fault. For well over a hundred years, dog owners are strictly liable whenever the dog bites someone.

Dog bites human–strict liability: Civil Code Section 3342, Subdivision (a) provides in relevant part: “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, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness.” In other words, if the sweet cuddly pooch that had never even growled at anyone in its life suddenly bites and injures someone, the owner is responsible for that person’s injuries regardless of the dog’s prior gentle nature.

Dog bites another dog, and human suffers a stroke: What about a case where the dog attack is not directed against the injured person but the target is another dog? Not long ago, Les handled a case where a man was out walking his beloved small dog during an afternoon when it was attacked by a pit bull and succumbed to its wounds the following day. The strict liability of Civil Code Section 3342, Subdivision (a), only applies where a dog bites a person. In this case, the pit bull bit/attacked another dog; and so strict liability was not available.

The case presented four main issues, and three-and-a-half were answered in the affirmative.

1. Did the small dog die as a result of its having been attacked by the pit bull? The vet records said YES.
2. Was the emotional trauma resulting in a stroke requiring a lengthy hospitalization and a year of rehab that the owner of the small dog (the plaintiff) suffered after seeing his beloved pet succumb to its injuries the cause of his stroke, etc.? YES. The stroke and the death of his animal were closely related in time and noted in the medical records.
3. Was the owner of the pit bull negligent? YES, for failing to control her dog. Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others. A person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act. A person is negligent if that person does something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonable person would do in the same situation (California Jury Instruction No. 401.) In other words, everyone is responsible for his or her own mess.
4. Did the owner of the pit bull have the financial wherewithal to properly compensate the plaintiff for his injuries? Not quite. The plaintiff’s physical impairment resulting from the stroke and his emotional trauma merited an award considerably higher than the pit bull owner’s disappointing liability limits under her policy of renter’s insurance. Unfortunately, the lady, who had few if any assets of her own, had no funds available to settle the claim other than those forthcoming under her renter’s insurance. The economic realities, thus, compelled that Les’s client could not expect any more than the aforementioned policy limits. Every year, sad to say, millions of people are injured in the United States under circumstances where there just isn’t enough money available to adequately compensate the victim. In this particular case, if the pit bull owner had owned her own home instead of being a renter, the high likelihood is that she would have had $1,000,000 of liability insurance, which is the norm for homeowner policies.