TRUSTED AND EXPERIENCED DOG ATTACK ATTORNEYS - FREE CONSULTATION 310-277-4857

CACI INSTRUCTIONS – CACI 463- Dog Bite Statute (Civ. Code, § 3342)

CACI are the approved jury instructions from the Judicial Council of California. Jury instructions are read to the jury by the judge and establish the law the jury must follow in deciding the case. A partner of Cheong &, Denove has been formally recognized as one of the attorneys who assisted the task force in the preparation of these jury instructions.

463. Dog Bite Statute (Civ. Code § 3342) Essential Factual Elements (2013)

We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Did [name of defendant]’s dog bite [name of plaintiff]?

If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

2. Was [name of plaintiff] in a public place or lawfully on private property when [he/she] was bitten?

If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

3. Was the dog a substantial factor in causing harm to [name of plaintiff]?

If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

4. What are the damages, if any, that [name of plaintiff] suffered as a result of the dog bite?
[a. Past economic loss, including [lost earnings/ lost profits/medical expenses]
[b. Future economic loss, including [lost earnings/lost profits/lost earning capacity/ medical expenses]
[c. Past noneconomic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]
[d. Future noneconomic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]

TOTAL

[After it has been signed/after all verdict forms have been signed], deliver this verdict form to the [clerk/bailiff/Judge]. –

463.Dog Bite Statute (Civ. Code, § 3342) – Essential Factual Elements

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant]’s dog bit [him/her/nonbinary pronoun] and that [name of defendant] is responsible for that harm.

People who own dogs can be held responsible for the harm from a dog bite, no matter how carefully they guard or restrain their dogs.

To establish [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

  1. That [name of defendant] owned a dog;
  2. That the dog bit [name of plaintiff] while [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] was in a public place or lawfully on private property;
  3. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
  4. That [name of defendant]’s dog was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

[[Name of plaintiff] was lawfully on private property of the owner if [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] was performing any duty required by law or was on the property at the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.]

New September 2003; Revised April 2007, May 2020

Directions for Use

Read the last optional paragraph if there is an issue regarding whether the plaintiff was lawfully on private property when the plaintiff was bitten.

For an instruction on common-law liability based on the defendant’s knowledge of his or her pet’s dangerous propensities, see CACI No. 462, Strict Liability for Injury Caused by Domestic Animal With Dangerous Propensities – Essential Factual Elements.

Sources and Authority

  • Liability for Dog Bites. Civil Code section 3342(a).
  • This statute creates an exception to the general rule that an owner is not strictly

liable for harm caused by a domestic animal absent knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensity.(Hicks v. Sullivan (1932) 122 Cal.App. 635, 639 [10 P.2d 516].)

  • It is not necessary that the skin be broken in order for the statute to apply. (Johnson v. McMahan (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 173, 176 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 173].)
  • “The defenses of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence may still be asserted” in an action brought under section 3342. (Johnson, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 176.)
  • “A veterinarian or a veterinary assistant who accepts employment for the medical treatment of a dog, aware of the risk that any dog, regardless of its previous nature, might bite while being treated, has assumed this risk as part of his or her occupation.” (Nelson v. Hall (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 709, 715 [211 Cal.Rptr. 668], original italics.)
  • “[Plaintiff], by virtue of the nature of her occupation as a kennel worker, assumed the risk of being bitten or otherwise injured by the dogs under her care and control while in the custody of the commercial kennel where she worked pursuant to a contractual boarding agreement. The Court of Appeal correctly concluded a strict liability cause of action under the dog bite statute (§ 3342) was therefore unavailable to [plaintiff].” (Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, 1132 [47 Cal.Rptr.3d 553, 140 P.3d 848].)
  • The definition of “lawfully upon the private property of such owner” effectively prevents trespassers from obtaining recovery under the Dog Bite Statute. (Fullerton v. Conan (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 354, 358 [197 P.2d 59].)

Secondary Sources

6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, §§ 1569-1573 California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed.) § 3.2

1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 6, Strict Liability for Injuries Caused by Animals, § 6.12 (Matthew Bender)

3 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 23, Animals: Civil Liability (Matthew Bender)

17 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 178, Premises Liability (Matthew Bender)

1 California Civil Practice: Torts § 2:16 (Thomson Reuters)

 

Cheong & Denove has established a reputation as the law firm that other attorneys refer their cases to.

Call Now Button