Negligence per se in a California dog bite claim makes the dog owner liable for a dog bite that results from a statutory violation. Violation of the law establishes negligence. The victim doesn’t have to prove that the owner’s actions were negligent.
The victim must prove that a bite occurred and the identity of the dog owner. Defenses may still apply.
The experienced San Bernardino dog bite lawyers at LA Century Law explain dog bite negligence per se in California.
Definition of Negligence Per Se Under California Law
California has both negligence per se liability and strict liability for California dog bites. While similar, the two are different concepts. Both help dog bite victims receive the compensation they deserve.
Negligence per se vs. strict liability
California has a strict liability law for dog bites. (Cal. Civ. Code § 3342). The law makes a dog owner liable for a bite that occurs on public or private property, including the owner’s property.
The victim doesn’t have to prove knowledge of the dog’s viciousness. This is California’s strict liability dog bite law. It creates direct liability, without the victim having to prove negligence. (Negligence is an unreasonable act or failure to act.)
California negligence per se for dog bites involves a violation of another dog ownership law. When a violation of a law results in harm, such as a dog bite, negligence is assumed. The victim doesn’t have the added step of proving the owner was unreasonable in how they managed the dog.
Negligence per se is a legal principle that applies in California personal injury law and not only for dog bites.
Example of Dog Bite Case Involving Negligence Per Se
San Bernardino County has a dog leash law (San Bernardino County law § 32.0108 Control of Animals). The law prohibits anyone in control of a dog from allowing the dog to run loose in a public place or on private property without the consent of the owner. A person may not move their dog from their property unless the dog is on a leash, in a carrier, or in a vehicle.
Say a person allows their dog to run free, which is a violation of the leash law. The dog attacks another person, causing injury. In this case, the injured person could point to the San Bernardino County leash law as proof that the dog owner was negligent.
They must prove that the owner violated the law for negligence per se to apply. If it applies, they don’t have to separately prove that the dog owner was unreasonable for allowing the dog to run at large. In addition to proving the statutory violation, the victim must prove their damages.
How Violating Dog Ownership Laws Can Prove Negligence Automatically
California has several dog ownership laws, covering a variety of topics. These include:
- Leash laws
- Providing proper care for a dog
- Leaving a dog unattended in a vehicle
- Training a dog to fight
- Abandoning a dog
- Unlawful importation or sale of an animal
- Dogs in restaurants
- Harboring a dog declared dangerous
- Failing to surrender a dog subject to impoundment
- Permitting a dog to menace
- Keeping a dog with a communicable disease
If someone violates a dog ownership law, negligence per se can make negligence automatic.
The dog owner can’t claim that their actions were reasonable. Claiming that it was okay to train the dog to fight, for example, wouldn’t be allowed.
Defenses to negligence per se
There are still some defenses that may apply to a claim relying on negligence per se. For example, the dog owner may claim comparative negligence, meaning the victim also did something that contributed to the injury. They may claim that the law doesn’t apply, they didn’t violate the law, or their violation was legally excused. They may argue that the violation of the law was not a substantial factor in the harm that occurred.
When Dog Leash Law Violations Lead to Liability
Dog leash laws are commonly referenced for California dog bite negligence per se claims. Many counties and municipalities in California have dog leash laws. The laws vary, but they generally require the dog to be leashed and under the control of someone who can control the dog. Alternatively, the dog may be in a carrier or a vehicle. When a dog is allowed to roam and it bites, the dog owner can’t argue the typical defenses like the dog has never bitten before or that others allow their dogs out without a leash. The law creates a standard of care rather than the plaintiff having to prove that the owner was unreasonable.
The Importance of Local Ordinances in Dog Bite Cases
Many dog laws exist on a local level. They are county or city ordinances rather than statewide laws. Negligence per se can apply to a dog bite claim in California, regardless of which governing body passed the law.
How To Use Negligence Per Se To Strengthen Your Claim
To use negligence per se for a dog bite claim, state it as grounds for liability. You may state all the grounds for a claim that apply. It’s common for a claim to reference strict liability, negligence, and negligence per se. Identify the law that will be used to claim negligence per se. If the case heads towards trial, it may be appropriate to motion the court to prevent the defense from arguing that the defendant’s actions were not negligent.
You must also ask the court for the appropriate jury instruction regarding negligence per se.
Proving the Violation Led to Your Injury
An important step in a claim involving negligence per se is proving that the violation of the statute led to injury. This is called causation. It’s not enough to violate a law. Instead, the violation must be a substantial factor in causing harm. You may prove causation with factual witnesses that explain the sequence of events. Medical evidence may explain the extent of injury and rule out other causes.
Contact an Experienced San Bernardino Dog Bite Lawyer
If you have suffered a dog bite, negligence per se may be an important part of your claim.
Contact an experienced San Bernardino dog bite lawyer at LA Century Law.