Dog Bites Rancho Palos Verdes

The search results confirm my understanding.

• California Civil Code § 3342 imposes strict liability.
• The statute itself has specific carve-outs, primarily for trespassers and dogs used in military or police work under specific conditions. The military/police dog exception specifically mentions "defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or provoking act" as one scenario where the agency may not be liable under the strict liability statute.
• However, common law defenses like provocation, comparative negligence, and assumption of the risk can still be asserted in strict liability dog bite cases, despite the strict liability nature of the statute. These defenses can reduce or eliminate the plaintiff's recovery.

Therefore, the original text's "defending itself against provocation" under "Exceptions to Liability" is technically correct within the context of military/police dogs as an exception written into the statute itself. But it's incomplete if it's meant to cover general provocation. For a civilian dog owner, provocation is a defense that can be raised, not an exception that makes the statute inapplicable.

To make it more accurate and in-depth, I should:

1. Keep the military/police dog exception as is, but clarify its specific conditions.
2. Add provocation, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk as defenses that can be raised by any dog owner, distinguishing them from the statutory exceptions.

Here's how I'll revise the "Exceptions to Liability" section: