California Dog Bite Law: What Is a Dangerous or Vicious Propensity?
What is a dog’s dangerous propensity?
Although California cities and counties have their own ordinances concerning dogs, ranging from leash laws to vaccinations or maximum number of dogs per households, the main California statute governing dangerous and vicious propensity is the California Food and Agriculture Code (“FAC”).
Per FAC Section 31602, a “potentially dangerous dog” means any of the following:
(a) Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog.
(b) Any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing a less severe injury than as defined in Section 31604 (i.e. muscle tears or disfiguring lacerations or requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic surgery)
(c) Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury attacking a domestic animal off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog.
Any propensity on the part of a domestic animal which is likely to cause injury to human beings can be considered a dangerous propensity within the meaning of the law. This is not limited to biting but to “any behavior that requires defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury.” Of course, not all canine behaviors meet the definition of a dangerous propensity. For example, barking alone may be insufficient. However, combined with other aggressive acts such as growling, snapping, or baring teeth, it could suggest a genuine risk of harm.
An example of dangerous propensity is if a dog has the playful habit of jumping up on visitors. If this results in knocking a person down, causing injury, even absent any aggressive behavior and absent an actual bite, it could support a finding that the dog has a dangerous propensity.
What is a dog’s vicious propensity?
California Food and Agriculture Section 31603 defines a “vicious dog” as either of the following:
(a) Any dog that, when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being.
(b) Any dog previously determined to be and currently listed as a potentially dangerous dog that, after its owner or keeper has been notified of this determination, continues the behavior (...)
California Food and Agriculture Section 31604 defines “severe injury” as any physical injury to a human being that results in muscle tears or disfiguring lacerations or requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic surgery
Who decides if a dog has dangerous or vicious propensity
The question of whether a domestic animal has dangerous or vicious propensity is a factual one, decided on a case-by-case basis. Evidence can be presented, including testimony, experts, video, and photos, among other things. Every case is different and no outcome can be guaranteed.
In a civil process, a judge or a jury hears all the evidence and makes the ultimate decision whether a dog has a dangerous or vicious propensity.
If a complaint is filed with animal control, the issue of propensity will usually be heard in a less formal, administrative setting, wherein an animal control officer conducts a hearing and makes the decision.
What are some potential consequences of a dog found to have dangerous or vicious propensity?
In California, the owner of a dog that bites is responsible for the resulting injuries under a strict liability statute (California Civil Code Section 3342). This means that it does not matter if the dog previously bit, or if the owner was aware of it. As such, the issue of propensity is not relevant to a strict liability dog bite case.
However, not all dog bite cases are brough under the strict liability statute. For example, a person who was bit by a dog could claim negligence against the person or entity that owned, controlled, managed or supervised the premises where the dog bite occurred, under a premises liability legal theory. In this situation, the issue of a dog’s propensity becomes a crucial element of the case. A homeowner, landlord, or business entity may have to pay the damages suffered by the victim, even if the dog did not belong to them, if the plaintiff can show that the dog had a propensity and that the defendant knew about it.
A civil action for recovery of damages is not the only consequence of a finding of propensity. There is the question of what happens to the dog itself. In cases where the plaintiff files a complaint with a county shelter, the shelter must enforce the relevant county codes and shelter operations, which may vary from county to county. Cities also have their own laws and ordinances, making the process a complex one with many layers.
Contact The Law Offices of Ali Taheripour
At The Law Offices of Ali Taheripour, we understand the complex issues that can arise in California dog bite litigation. We are mindful that a dog bite case is never simply a case number or a legal dispute, but a highly emotional situation for all involved, which merits compassion and understanding. Whether you were injured in a dog attack or are facing a dog bite claim, our team can help evaluate your situation and explain your legal options under California law.
Legal Disclaimer:
The information and opinions expressed herein are provided solely for general informational, educational, and commentary purposes based on publicly available information. Nothing contained herein constitutes legal advice, legal representation, or a legal opinion regarding any specific matter.
The author is not acting as an attorney for, consultant to, or representative of any party involved in the matter discussed and has not been retained, compensated, or affiliated with any party, attorney, law firm, insurer, court, or other participant in the case. Any analysis, observations, or conclusions are personal opinions based on the information available at the time of writing and may be incomplete or subject to revision as additional facts emerge.
This commentary is based solely on publicly available information and is provided for informational and discussion purposes only. The author is not an attorney representing any party in this matter, has not been retained or consulted in connection with the case, and is not affiliated with any party, law firm, insurer, or court involved. Nothing herein should be construed as legal advice or as creating an attorney-client relationship.
The information on this website is considered advertising under applicable California law and may be considered advertising under your state's laws and ethical rules. This website and its contents are offered for informational, promotional purposes only and are not legal advice. Information on this website may be incomplete or out of date. No representations, testimonials, or endorsements on this website constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any legal matter.
No Guarantee of Results
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. The outcome of each legal case depends upon many factors, including the facts of the case, and no attorney can guarantee a positive result in any particular case.
The Law Offices of Ali Taheripour make no guarantees, warranties, or predictions about the outcome of your legal case.
We also make no representations that the quality of legal work to be performed is greater than the quality of legal work performed by other lawyers. Our prior results, including successful judgments and settlements, do not guarantee a similar outcome.
No Attorney-Client Relationship