California Dog Bite Liability: Strict Liability and Statutory Defenses
Introduction
California imposes strict liability on dog owners for injuries caused by dog bites, governed by Civil Code section 3342. Distinct from common law rules, this statutory regime eliminates the need for plaintiffs to prove negligence or knowledge of a dog's viciousness and sets forth both the essential factual elements for liability and recognized exceptions.
I. Strict Liability Under Civil Code Section 3342
Civil Code section 3342(a) provides:
“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.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 3342(a).)
This statute creates an explicit exception to the common law rule, which generally required proof of the owner’s knowledge of the animal’s dangerous propensities before imposing liability. (Hicks v. Sullivan, 122 Cal. App. 635, 639 (1932).) Under the statute, a dog owner is liable for harm caused by a dog bite, regardless of the precautions taken or any lack of prior incidents.
II. Elements of a Dog Bite Claim
To recover under section 3342, the plaintiff must establish:
1. The defendant owned the dog;
2. The dog bit the plaintiff while the plaintiff was in a public place or lawfully on private property;
3. The plaintiff suffered harm; and
4. The dog was a substantial factor in causing harm. (Cal. Civ. Code § 3342(a).)
Notably, “it is not necessary that the skin be broken in order for the statute to apply.” (Johnson v. McMahan, 68 Cal. App. 4th 173, 176 (1998).)
III. Statutory Defenses and Exceptions
While liability is strict, certain defenses and exceptions remain:
Assumption of Risk and Contributory Negligence: These defenses may be asserted by dog owners, even in actions brought under section 3342. (Johnson, 68 Cal. App. 4th at 176.)
Veterinarians and Kennel Workers: Occupational assumption of risk precludes recovery under the statute for veterinarians, vet assistants, and kennel workers. A veterinarian who accepts employment for medical treatment of a dog assumes the risk of being bitten (Nelson v. Hall, 165 Cal. App. 3d 709, 715 (1985)), and strict liability is unavailable to kennel workers bitten while doing their job (Priebe v. Nelson, 39 Cal. 4th 1112, 1132 (2006)).
Trespassers: The statute bars claims by trespassers—only individuals “lawfully upon the private property of such owner” can recover. (Fullerton v. Conan, 87 Cal. App. 2d 354, 358 (1948).)
IV. Relationship to Common Law and Other Causes of Action
Civil Code section 3342 is a specific exception to the traditional requirement for knowledge of viciousness, established under common law. (Hicks, 122 Cal. App. at 639.) For injuries not caused by bites, or when the defendant is not the dog’s owner, plaintiffs may proceed under other tort theories, which may require proof of negligence or other liability principles.
V. Conclusion
California’s dog bite statute simplifies recovery for bite victims by imposing strict liability on owners, shifting the focus away from fault or past behavior. However, assumption of risk—particularly for professionals—and trespassing limits liability, consistent with judicial interpretations. For practitioners, reviewing Civil Code section 3342 and the leading cases ensures a full understanding of both the broad scope and targeted limits of this statutory regime.
Citations:
(Cal. Civ. Code § 3342; Hicks v. Sullivan, 122 Cal. App. 635 (1932); Johnson v. McMahan, 68 Cal. App. 4th 173 (1998); Nelson v. Hall, 165 Cal. App. 3d 709 (1985); Priebe v. Nelson, 39 Cal. 4th 1112 (2006); Fullerton v. Conan, 87 Cal. App. 2d 354 (1948).)