CACI 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]
[After it has been signed/after all verdict forms have been signed], deliver this verdict form to the [clerk/bailiff/Judge].
New September 2003; Revised April 2007
Directions for Use
Read the last optional paragraph if there is an issue regarding whether the plaintiff was lawfully on private property when he or she 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].)
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, §§ 1408–1412 California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed.) § 3.2 1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 6, Strict Liability for Injuries Caused by dog bite 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 (Thomson West) § 2:16464–499.
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, Rowell, Bennett & Hapuarachy has been formally recognized as one of the attorneys who assisted the task force in the preparation of these jury instructions.
The law firm Cheong, Denove, Rowell, Bennett & Hapuarachy provides legal services throughout Southern California including the cities and counties of Anaheim, Bakersfield, Beverly Hills, Chula Vista, Garden Grove, Glendale, Inglewood, Irvine, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Oceanside, Oxnard, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Santa Ana, Temecula, Van Nuys, Kern County, Imperial County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County and Ventura County.
The materials appearing on this website are provided for informational use only, and are in no way intended to constitute legal advice of this law firm or any of its attorneys. This website is considered attorney advertising.
Our website has been designed for informational purposes and should not cause you to form an expectation about the results that you may achieve based upon your potential legal claim or issue.
Phone (310) 277-4857
Fax (310) 277-5254
Los Angeles, CA