Dog Bites Covina
Personal Injury Lawyers Near Covina For Dog Bites
Written by Daniel Benji, Esq. head attorney of Benji Personal Injury Accident Attorneys A.P.C.
Residents of Covina who suffer injuries due to a dog attack face physical pain, medical expenses, and potential long-term trauma. Understanding the legal framework surrounding animal attacks is essential for victims seeking fair compensation. Benji Personal Injury Accident Attorneys represents individuals in Covina who have been harmed by canine aggression, ensuring they understand their rights under California state law and local municipal codes.
California statutes favor the victim in many dog bite scenarios, but navigating insurance claims and establishing liability requires a firm grasp of strict liability rules, negligence theories, and specific defenses often used by dog owners.
California Strict Liability Statute
California Civil Code § 3342 establishes a strict liability standard for dog bites. This statute dictates that the owner of a 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. Lawfully in a private place means the person was an invitee, licensee, or otherwise had permission to be on the property, and not a trespasser. This includes the property of the owner of the dog.
Under this strict liability rule, the victim does not need to prove that the dog owner was negligent or careless. The owner is responsible for the injury simply because they own the dog. This distinguishes California from states that follow a "one-bite rule," where an owner might avoid liability if they had no prior knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities. In Covina, a dog owner is liable even if the animal has never shown aggression or bitten anyone before.
Negligence and Non-Bite Injuries
Strict liability under Civil Code § 3342 applies specifically to bites. However, dogs can cause serious injury without biting, such as by knocking a person over, scratching them, or causing a bicycle accident. In these instances, the legal theory of general negligence applies.
To succeed in a claim for non-bite injuries, the victim must demonstrate that the owner failed to exercise reasonable care in controlling the animal. This often involves showing that the owner knew or should have known the dog presented a risk and failed to take appropriate preventative measures.
Negligence Per Se
A powerful legal argument in non-bite cases is negligence per se. This doctrine applies when an injury results from the dog owner violating a statute or ordinance designed to protect public safety. If a dog owner in Covina violates local leash laws and that violation leads to an injury, the violation itself can serve as proof of negligence.
Covina Animal Control and Local Ordinances
Local regulations in Covina and Los Angeles County influence how liability is determined. The Inland Valley Humane Society (IVHS) provides animal care and control services for the City of Covina and enforces local codes.
Relevant local regulations include:
- Leash Laws: Covina falls under Los Angeles County regulations regarding animal restraint. Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances section 10.32.010 states that owners must restrain dogs on a substantial leash not exceeding six feet in length when on public property or common areas of private property. Failure to adhere to this law is a common factor in negligence claims.
- Dog Limitations: The Covina Municipal Code, specifically Section 7.12.010 (amending Section 10.20.038), generally limits the number of dogs a person may keep at one residence to three. Evidence of hoarding or exceeding these limits can sometimes support claims of negligence or unsafe premises.
Common Defenses in Dog Bite Cases
While California is a strict liability state, dog owners and their insurance carriers may utilize specific defenses to reduce or eliminate their financial responsibility. Understanding these defenses is critical for building a strong case.
| Defense Theory | Description |
|---|---|
| Trespassing | Strict liability applies only when the victim is lawfully on private property. If the victim was trespassing on the dog owner's property at the time of the bite, the owner may not be liable. |
| Provocation | If the victim provoked the dog, such as by teasing, hitting, or tormenting the animal, a court may reduce the owner's liability or absolve them entirely. |
| Assumption of Risk | Professionals who work with dogs, such as veterinarians, groomers, or kennel workers, typically assume the risk of being bitten as part of their occupation. This defense creates the "Veterinarian's Rule," which limits the ability of these professionals to sue for bites sustained during their work. |
Landlord Liability for Dog Bites
In many cases, the dog owner may be a renter with limited insurance coverage. Victims often inquire whether the landlord or property owner bears responsibility. Generally, landlords are not strictly liable for a tenant's dog.
To hold a landlord liable, the injured party must prove two specific elements:
- The landlord had actual knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities.
- The landlord had the ability to remove the dog or prevent the harm but failed to do so.
Mere knowledge that a tenant has a dog is insufficient. The evidence must show the landlord knew the specific dog was dangerous prior to the attack.
Damages and Compensation
Victims of dog bites in Covina may pursue compensation for various economic and non-economic losses. Documenting these damages is a vital part of the legal process.
Recoverable damages often include:
- Medical Expenses: Costs for emergency room visits, surgeries, hospitalization, and ongoing treatments such as physical therapy.
- Reconstructive Surgery: Future medical costs for scar reduction or plastic surgery required to address disfigurement.
- Lost Wages: Income lost due to time away from work during recovery.
- Pain and Suffering: Compensation for physical pain, emotional distress, and psychological trauma, including fear of dogs (cynophobia).
Statute of Limitations
California imposes a strict timeframe for filing personal injury lawsuits. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, a dog bite victim has two years from the date of the injury to file a claim against the dog owner. Failing to file a lawsuit within this two-year window typically results in the court dismissing the case and the victim losing the right to recover compensation.
Exceptions to this rule are rare but exist for minors. If the victim was under 18 at the time of the attack, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until their 18th birthday.
Benji Personal Injury Accident Attorneys assists clients in Covina by investigating the circumstances of the attack, identifying all liable parties, and managing the procedural requirements of filing a claim within state deadlines.
By submitting this form, you agree to our Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy. You also consent to receive calls, texts and emails from Benji Personal Injury Accident Attorneys.