Owner Liability for Dog Bites or Falls

In relation to a dog bite, strict liability means the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault.  If your dog bites someone, you are liable subject to any valid defenses.

California Civil Code § 3342 reads in relevant part 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, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.  A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.”

The above statute is "designed...to prevent dogs from being a hazard to the community." Davis v. Glaschler (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1399. The above statute places a strict burden upon individuals who choose to have dogs.

Compensation for Dog Related Injuries

You may be compensated for all of your expenses if you have been injured as a result of being bitten by a dog.  You may be entitled to past medical expenses, future medical expenses, disfigurement for any scarring that may occur, loss of wages, loss of earning capacity, as well as pain and suffering.  But what happens if you are injured or your dog injures someone because he or she causes a person to fall when the animal was not on a leash?

Leash Laws

Many counties in California have leash laws which require that all dogs are to be on leashes and under control whenever they are off the owner's property. 

A local ordinance, penalizing an owner whose dog is allowed to roam public streets unleashed, is a lawful animal control law enacted to protect public health and safety and imposes strict criminal liability, regardless of the presence or absence of mens rea in the dog owner.  See Delfino v. Sloan (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 1429. 

Unleashed Dogs May Imply Negligence

The courts have noted that an owner’s non-compliance with a city or county’s leash law is negligent per se.  Black’s Legal Dictionary defines negligence per se as, when “negligence is established as a matter of law, so that breach of the duty is not a jury question.”  If your dog is off leash and someone gets injured, but not even bitten, you could be on the hook.

The Delfino court stated the following, “[A]n ordinance forbidding owners to ‘allow’ their unleashed dogs to be on public property imposes a ‘positive duty’ to prevent unleashed dogs from being present. The ordinance is violated even where there is no proof the owner intentionally or willfully caused the dog to roam loose. Its requirement that a dog must be kept on its owner's property or on a leash is violated by any owner of a dog not so confined.”  Delfino, at 1436.

A prima facie case of common-law negligence is established by simply presenting evidence that at the time of the injury a dog is "running at large," which in turn is a violation of a city ordinance.  See Garson v. Juarique (1979) 99 Cal. App. 3d 769.  If an animal is owned by you and not leashed, you may be responsible for injuries a parties suffers.  This may be the case even if the dog is off your property.