How To Prove A California Strict Liability for Domestic Animal with Dangerous Propensities Claim

In California, a claim of Strict Liability for Domestic Animal with Dangerous Propensities is defined as:
Imposition of legal responsibility for injury attributed to a domestic animal attack that does not rely on showing evidence of an animal keeper’s carelessness or fault. Responsibility for damages arises solely from showing that the animal was known to be dangerous.
It simply means:
The keeper of a dangerous animal bears legal responsibility for injuries even if the animal keeper did not do anything wrong.
There are 5 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant owned, kept, or controlled a domestic animal with dangerous propensities. The defendant had a pet that was known to be dangerous, meaning they owned or took care of an animal that could cause harm due to its aggressive behavior or tendencies.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant had previously received multiple complaints from neighbors about their dog aggressively barking and lunging at passersby.
* The defendant was aware that their cat had a history of attacking other pets in the neighborhood.
* The defendant had been warned by a veterinarian that their pet exhibited signs of severe anxiety and aggression towards strangers.
* The defendant’s dog had previously bitten a guest at their home, resulting in medical treatment.
* The defendant had not taken any measures to secure their property despite knowing their animal had escaped multiple times. - Element 2. The animal had an unusually dangerous nature or tendency. This means that the animal is known to have aggressive or harmful behaviors that could pose a risk to people or other animals, making the owner responsible for any injuries or damages caused by the animal’s dangerous tendencies, regardless of whether the owner was negligent.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The dog had previously bitten a neighbor’s child without provocation, resulting in medical treatment.
* The animal exhibited aggressive behavior towards strangers, growling and barking aggressively whenever someone approached the property.
* The owner had received multiple complaints from visitors about the dog’s unpredictable and hostile demeanor.
* The animal was known to escape its yard frequently, leading to confrontations with other pets and people in the neighborhood.
* The dog had a history of attacking other animals, including two separate incidents involving local pets. - Element 3. Before plaintiff was injured, the defendant knew or should have known that the animal had this nature or tendency. Before the plaintiff was hurt, the defendant was aware or should have been aware that their animal had a dangerous nature or behavior that could cause harm.
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 area.
* The defendant had previously witnessed the animal lunging at visitors, indicating a pattern of aggressive tendencies.
* The animal had been involved in prior incidents where it bit or attacked other animals, which the defendant was aware of.
* The defendant had enrolled the animal in obedience classes but failed to follow through with training, despite knowing the animal’s aggressive nature.
* The defendant had been warned by a veterinarian about the animal’s potential for aggression based on its breed and past behavior. - Element 4. Plaintiff was harmed. The plaintiff must show that they suffered some kind of injury or damage, whether physical, emotional, or financial, as a direct result of the dangerous behavior of the domestic animal involved in the case.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff was bitten by the defendant’s dog while walking on a public sidewalk, resulting in physical injuries that required medical treatment.
* The plaintiff suffered emotional distress and anxiety after the incident, leading to a significant disruption in their daily life and activities.
* The plaintiff incurred medical expenses totaling over $5,000 due to the injuries sustained from the dog bite.
* The plaintiff experienced lost wages for two weeks as a direct result of the injuries, impacting their financial stability.
* The plaintiff’s injuries have resulted in ongoing pain and suffering, affecting their quality of life and ability to engage in previously enjoyed activities. - Element 5. That the animal’s unusually dangerous nature or tendency was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. In a strict liability case for a dangerous pet, the plaintiff must show that the animal’s known aggressive behavior significantly contributed to the injury they suffered.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The dog had a history of aggressive behavior, having previously bitten another person without provocation.
* The owner was aware of the dog’s dangerous tendencies but failed to take appropriate precautions to prevent harm.
* Witnesses reported that the dog exhibited threatening behavior towards strangers on multiple occasions prior to the incident.
* The breed of the dog is known for its aggressive tendencies, which contributed to the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries.
* The plaintiff was attacked shortly after the dog was provoked by loud noises, highlighting its unpredictable nature.
(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 462.)
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a Claim of Strict Liability for Domestic Animal with Dangerous Propensities, 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 Strict Liability for Domestic Animal with Dangerous Propensities Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only