Understanding California Dog Bite Laws - Civil Code § 3342
California Civil Code § 3342 Dog Bite Statute
(a) The owner of any 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, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner. (b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the bringing of an action pursuant to subdivision (a) against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite or bites occurred while the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following: (1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect’s involvement in criminal activity. (2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime. (3) In the execution of a warrant. (4) In the defense of a peace officer or another person. (c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply in any case where the victim of the bite or bites was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act or acts that prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work. (d) Subdivision (b) shall apply only where a governmental agency using a dog in military or police work has adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or military work enumerated in subdivision (b). Although, the owner(s)' of a dog who has bitten another person is held strictly liable for damages in California. There is a defense to this rule known as “assumption of risk” Assumption of risk can be used as a defense when the victim of a dog bite is working in the capacity of a veterinarian, or some other contracted dog handler. Cohen v. McIntyre, 16 Cal. App. 4th 650 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. June 15, 1993); Priebe v. Nelson, 140 P.3d 848 (Cal. Aug. 28, 2006). “The doctrine of assumption of risk, which is generally applicable in strict liability actions has long been recognized as a defense to a personal injury action brought pursuant to the dog bite statute (§ 3342) under appropriate facts.” Priebe, 140 P.3d 848, 853.
Can I Still Be Sued If The Dog Bite Did Not Result in Any Lacerations?
While many may be under the impression that you can only be sued if your dog bit someone which resulted in scarring or breaking of the skin; "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].) In Priebe, the Supreme Court of California held that the defendant dog owner was not strictly liable when his dog bit the plaintiff kennel worker. Id. at 861. The court reasoned, “Priebe, 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.” Id. Similarly, the court in Cohen, held that the plaintiff veterinarian assumed the risk of being bitten by the defendant’s dog, and therefore was barred from recovery. Cohen, 16 Cal. App. 4th 650, 657. However, the court in Davis v. Gaschler, held that the assumption of risk did not apply when the plaintiff stopped to help a dog that was hit by a car and was bitten by the dog. Davis v. Gaschler, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1392, 1402 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. Dec. 23, 1992). The court reasoned, “plaintiff was not employed or otherwise compensated for helping injured dogs. Nor was there an employment relationship or any relationship between plaintiff and defendants.” Id. at 1401.
Essential Elements You Must Prove in Dog Bite Statute Civ. Code, § 3342
In California, dog owners can be held responsible for the harm from a dog bite, no matter how carefully they guard or restrain their dogs.
In Order to Establish a Claim, Plaintiff Must Prove All of the following:
- That defendant owned a dog;
- That the dog bit Plaintiff while [he/she] was in a public place or lawfully on private property;
- That Plaintiff was harmed; and
- That Defendant’s dog was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm.
The plaintiff bit by the dog was lawfully on the private property of the owner if [he/ she] was performing any duty required by law or was on the property at the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.
Los Angeles Dog Bite Attorney
Are you in need of a dog bite lawyer in California? A Los Angeles dog bite attorney can provide you with the services you need. KAASS Law can help you out with various types of personal injury and dog bite cases. If you have questions regarding dog bite laws in California, we invite you to contact our experienced Glendale personal injury attorneys for a free consultation at (310) 943-1171 or our Los Angeles branch at (310) 943-1173.
Related Articles
View All Posts
Learn when California dog owners may be liable for bite injuries, what victims should do after an attack, and what legal options may apply.
Illinois limits private equity influence in law firms, reinforcing attorney independence, client confidentiality, and professional judgment.
What Are California's Clean Car Rules?
Clean Car rules refer to California's vehicle emission standards aimed at reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases. These rules come from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). They require automakers to cut tailpipe emissions and produce zero-emission vehicles like electric or hydrogen-powered cars.
California's program is stricter than federal rules. Over a dozen other states have adopted these standards under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act.
Legal Challenge to Clean Car Standards Gains Traction
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit against California’s Clean Car rules to move forward. This case was brought by Republican-led states and industry groups. They claim that California's authority to set its own emission rules is unconstitutional.
The main argument revolves around the federal Clean Air Act. It allows California to request a waiver to impose stricter standards. The plaintiffs argue that these waivers create confusion and impose unfair burdens on car manufacturers. Automakers must then meet both federal and California standards.
Supreme Court Declines to Block the Case
The Supreme Court did not rule on the lawsuit’s outcome. Instead, it simply allowed the case to continue in lower courts. This reverses earlier decisions that blocked the case on jurisdictional grounds.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has promised to defend the rules. Environmental groups also support the Clean Car program, citing public health and climate benefits.
What This Means for Automakers and Consumers
If the challenge succeeds, California might lose its power to enforce stricter emissions rules. Automakers would likely reduce investments in zero-emission vehicles for the California market.
Consumers could see fewer Clean Car options and increased vehicle emissions. If California wins, the state could continue shaping national clean vehicle policy and technology.
Environmental and Health Impacts
Clean Car standards are about more than climate change. They address serious public health concerns. Vehicle emissions worsen smog and trigger asthma and heart conditions, especially in cities.
California suffers from some of the worst air pollution in the U.S. Areas like Los Angeles and the Central Valley are most affected. Clean Car rules aim to reduce the harm caused by millions of vehicles.
To learn more about vehicle pollution and public health, visit the Environmental Defense Fund.
Legal Battle Over State vs. Federal Power
This lawsuit raises big questions about federalism. Should California be able to set stricter rules than the federal government?
The Clean Air Act gives California the right to apply for waivers. That’s because the state has struggled with air pollution for decades.
Opponents argue these waivers give California too much control over national markets. Supporters say they drive innovation and protect public health.
The Trump administration revoked California’s waiver. President Biden later restored it. The back-and-forth has led to legal uncertainty.
Clean Car Standards Drive the Electric Vehicle Future
No matter how this case ends, the shift toward electric vehicles (EVs) is underway. Automakers like Tesla, Ford, and GM are heavily investing in EVs.
Clean Car rules helped build charging infrastructure and encouraged EV adoption. Weakening these rules might slow progress. But market forces and climate goals will likely keep the EV transition moving forward.
KAASS LAW’s Legal Insight
At KAASS LAW, we closely track cases like the Clean Car challenge. Environmental laws affect businesses, consumers, and government entities alike. Our attorneys are ready to help you understand and respond to these legal changes.
Visit our Business Law page to learn how we assist clients with compliance and litigation. We also handle Lawsuits and Litigation in various sectors, including environmental matters.
What Happens Next?
The case returns to lower courts for full litigation. Both sides will present their arguments. A final decision may take years.
Until then, Clean Car standards remain active. Automakers, regulators, and environmental groups will be watching closely. The ruling could reshape national clean air policy.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s action allows a high-stakes lawsuit against California’s Clean Car rules to move forward. The outcome will affect state powers, public health, and the auto industry.
Whether you’re a business, consumer, or policymaker, the decisions made in this case could impact you. Contact KAASS LAW to learn how we can help you navigate these evolving legal landscapes.
