How To Prove A California Animal Injury Liability – Domesticated Animal Claim

 

How To Prove A California Animal Injury Liability - Domesticated Animal Claim

 

In California, a claim of Animal Injury Liability – Domesticated Animal is defined as:

Animal Injury Liability makes animal owners legally responsible when their animal attacks a person and causes injury.

It simply means:

Liability for injuries inflicted by an animal.

There are 5 elements of the claim:

  • Element 1. The defendant owned, controlled, or kept the animal. The defendant is considered responsible for the animal if they owned it, had control over it, or kept it in their care, meaning they had the authority or responsibility for the animal’s actions at the time of the injury.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant regularly fed and provided shelter for the animal in question, demonstrating ownership and control.
    * The animal was registered in the defendant’s name with the local animal control authority, indicating legal ownership.
    * The defendant was observed walking the animal in public on multiple occasions, showcasing their control over it.
    * The animal’s veterinary records, which are under the defendant’s name, confirm that the defendant is responsible for its care.
    * The defendant has consistently claimed the animal as their pet on social media, further establishing their ownership.

  • Element 2. The animal under defendant’s control possessed an unusually dangerous nature or tendency. This means that the animal owned by the defendant had a known tendency to be dangerous, making it more likely to cause harm, which the owner should have recognized and taken steps to prevent.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The dog had previously bitten another person without provocation, indicating a history of aggressive behavior.
    * Neighbors reported that the animal frequently exhibited threatening behavior towards passersby, demonstrating a pattern of hostility.
    * The defendant was aware of the animal’s aggressive tendencies but failed to take appropriate measures to prevent incidents.
    * The breed of the animal is known for its strong protective instincts, which can lead to aggressive behavior if not properly trained.
    * The animal had been involved in multiple altercations with other pets in the neighborhood, showcasing its propensity for violence.

  • Element 3. Prior to plaintiff’s injury, defendant knew or should have known that the animal had a dangerous nature or tendency. Before the plaintiff was hurt, the defendant was aware or should have been aware that their pet had a history of being dangerous or aggressive.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant had received multiple complaints from neighbors about the animal’s aggressive behavior towards other pets and people in the vicinity.
    * The defendant had previously been warned by a veterinarian that the animal exhibited signs of anxiety and aggression, which could lead to dangerous behavior.
    * The animal had a history of biting or attacking other animals, which the defendant was aware of prior to the incident.
    * The defendant had failed to secure the animal properly on several occasions, allowing it to roam freely in the neighborhood.
    * Witnesses had observed the animal lunging at passersby on multiple occasions, indicating a pattern of aggressive behavior that the defendant ignored.

  • Element 4. The plaintiff was harmed. The plaintiff was harmed means that the person who is making the claim suffered some kind of injury or damage, whether physical, emotional, or financial, as a result of the actions or behavior of the domesticated animal involved in the incident.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff sustained physical injuries requiring medical treatment after being bitten by the defendant’s dog.
    * The plaintiff incurred significant medical expenses due to the treatment of the injuries caused by the defendant’s animal.
    * The plaintiff experienced emotional distress and anxiety following the incident involving the defendant’s pet.
    * The plaintiff was unable to work for two weeks due to the injuries sustained from the animal attack.
    * The plaintiff’s quality of life has diminished as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defendant’s domesticated animal.

  • Element 5. The animal’s unusually dangerous nature or tendency was a substantial factor in plaintiff’s harm. The animal’s tendency to be dangerous played a big role in causing harm to the person, meaning that the owner could be held responsible for any injuries or damages that occurred because of the animal’s behavior.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The dog had a history of aggressive behavior, having bitten two other individuals prior to the incident.
    * The owner was aware of the dog’s tendency to react violently when approached by strangers.
    * The breed of the dog is known for its strength and potential for aggression, contributing to the severity of the injury.
    * The animal was not properly socialized, leading to heightened anxiety and aggressive responses in unfamiliar situations.
    * The owner failed to take necessary precautions, such as using a muzzle or leash, despite knowing the dog’s dangerous tendencies.

(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 462.)
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a Claim of Animal Injury Liability – Domesticated Animal, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Our resources can help you navigate this complex process effectively.

Prove Your CA Animal Injury Liability – Domesticated Animal Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only

Just a moment please.