Applying Negligence Per Se for Dog Attack Incidents
In California — like most other states – there are specific laws that address the keeping and maintenance of animals, as well as civil liability for injuries caused to other people by those animals. There are several different ways in which liability for injuries caused by a dog attack can be established for a personal injury claim or lawsuit, including ordinary or “general” negligence and/or strict liability. One other important legal concept is that of negligence per se for dog attack incidents, which in California is generally based upon county and city ordinances often referred to as “leash laws.”
How do the Different Liability Theories Apply to Dog Attacks?
Most folks are commonly familiar with the idea of “negligence” as it applies to a personal injury claim for establishing a defendant’s liability for injuries. It generally means that one person made some kind of mistake or error that they should not have made, and this mistake led to another person being injured. The driver of a motor vehicle may negligently run a stop sign, colliding with another vehicle and injuring its occupants. The staff of a supermarket may negligently leave a puddle of water on the floor in the produce aisle, leading to a shopper being injured in a slip-and-fall incident. This sort of general negligence requires proof that the defendant had a duty of care toward the injury victim and that they unreasonably did or failed to do something that resulted in the victim’s injury.
Another very common proof of liability for dog attack incidents in California and many other states is based upon “strict liability” for certain types of attacks. In California, this is based in section 3342 of the Civil Code, which states that the owner of a dog is liable for injuries resulting from a dog bite incident that occurs either in a public place — like a park or public sidewalk — or when the victim is “lawfully” in a private place, including on the dog owner’s property. There are some obvious exceptions included in the law, such as incidents involving on-duty police K9s and incidents where the victim wasn’t “lawfully” on the dog owner’s property, such as a guard dog biting a burglar. The most important exception, however, is that Civil Code 3342 only applies to dog bites, and many injuries resulting from dog attacks don’t specifically involve a bite.
Negligence per se for dog attack incidents, on the other hand, is a theory of liability that essentially requires that (1) there is a statute, regulation, or ordinance of some sort that addresses a particular activity – usually relating to safety or injury prevention – that (2) a defendant violated that statute, regulation, or ordinance, and (3) that violation resulted in an injury to another person. The most commonly cited laws in California related to negligence per se for dog attack incidents are the “leash laws” that have been adopted by many counties and cities – most but certainly not all of them – that require dog owners to keep their pets leashed in many public areas.
What’s the Advantage of Negligence Per Se for Dog Attack Incidents?
Negligence per se is one more tool in the toolbox that a personal injury lawyer has for establishing a dog owner’s liability for injuries caused by a dog attack. It is frequently used along with general negligence and/or strict negligence claims depending upon the facts of the particular case, but it has some advantages over both of these other theories of negligence.
In a general negligence claim, it is necessary to prove that the dog owner had some duty of care toward the attack victim and that the dog owner did or failed to do something that resulted in the injury. This can sometimes be challenging to prove depending on the facts of the case, and can involve finding proof of what was going on inside the dog owner’s mind at the time of the incident – were they aware of what was happening and how their actions might have an impact upon the victim? In a negligence per se claim based on a local leash law ordinance, however, there’s no need to explore or prove what was going on inside the dog owner’s head – it’s merely a matter of proving that the dog wasn’t leashed when it should have been.
Strict liability for dog bites based upon Civil Code 3342 is a very strong argument that can be made as proof of liability, however, Civil Code 3342’s one big gap is that it only applies to bites. Very often, injuries from dog attacks don’t directly include bites. It’s common for larger dogs to jump on people and knock them over, or for an unleashed dog to attack a leashed dog that the victim is walking, with the victim’s efforts to keep the dogs separate resulting in their falling and being injured. Negligence per se based upon a violation of a leash law can apply to any type of injury that the victim may sustain, not just bites.
See our video about the types of damages that can be claimed in a dog attack case:
Sacramento Dog Bite Lawyer
Thank you for reading our discussion of negligence per se in dog attack incidents and how it applies in California. I’m Ed Smith – I’ve been a Sacramento personal injury lawyer now for more than 38 years. As a lawyer with many years of experience representing victims who have been injured in dog attack incidents and many other types of personal injury situations, I encourage you to reach out to us if you or a loved one has been injured due to the actions of a negligent person. To reach one of our skilled injury attorneys for free, friendly advice, please give us a call at (916) 921-6400 or toll-free at (800) 404-5400. You can also contact us by using our online contact form.
To see some of our client reviews and past case results, go to:
Photo Attribution: Vilve Roosioks from Pixabay
gm llo [cs 1,021]