Homeowners’ Liability in Dog Bite Cases Where The Dog Does Not Belong To Them
Recent news headlines about a dog bite lawsuit against celebrity singer Chris Brown raises certain question about California homeowners’ liability in cases where the dog purportedly belongs to someone else. It has been reported that the plaintiff in the Chris Brown case was bitten by a dog that did not belong to the singer, rather to a security guard who was working for him at his house.
This case brings up legal issues that are relevant for many California homeowners. Generally, homeowners can be subject to a negligence claim, including premises liability, if a dog bites someone on their property, even if the dog does not belong to them. A plaintiff may have a viable negligence claim against a homeowner if they can demonstrate that:
- A dangerous condition, such as a dog with vicious propensity (a history of aggression or dangerous tendencies), existed on the property
- The homeowner knew or should have known about the dog with vicious propensity
- The homeowner failed to fix or warn about the dog in a timely manner
- The dog directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries
Evidence may include video footage, photos, incident reports, medical records, as well as the parties’ testimony.
Homeowner Insurance: A Financial Safeguard in Dog Bite Cases
In the case of the lawsuit filed against Chris Brown, news outlets report that the plaintiff was awarded $13 million dollars in damages by the jury. While this is not typical, the damages in a dog bite injury claim could potentially reach six figures depending, among other things, on the severity of the injuries and their long-lasting effect. Homeowners could be put in a precarious financial situation if they are found liable for a bite victim’s injuries, especially if the amount of damages exceeds their assets.
One potential financial safeguard exists: Homeowner Insurance. Standard homeowner insurance policies in California typically cover damages in a dog bite case including:
- Past and future medical expenses
- Lost wages and reduced earning capacity
- Pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Rehabilitation or therapy costs
- Permanent scarring or disfigurement
- Legal defense costs
Factors that play a role in Homeowner Insurance Coverage in a Dog Bite Case
Many factors can play a role in determining liability and insurance coverage in dog bite cases, such as:
- The specific language of the homeowner insurance policy: For example, certain policies have dog breed exclusion clauses;
- Whether the homeowner themselves occupied/maintained control of the premises: This would assist in determining if the homeowner had knowledge and the ability to take control of the situation;
- The homeowner’s consent to the dog being present on the property despite knowing of their vicious propensity;
- Warnings and safety features put in place related to the dog, such as “Beware of Dog” signs or a fenced-in area;
- The plaintiff’s own negligence, such as provoking the dog, failing to heed warnings, or if they were trespassing on the property;
In premises liability cases, California Courts require knowledge that the dog was dangerous in the past
While dog owner’s liability in California is governed by strict liability laws, homeowners can potentially be responsible for another person’s dog under general negligence principles, including premises liability. In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal reaffirmed the concept that a homeowner must have either actual or circumstantial knowledge that the dogs on their property were dangerous, prior to the incident that gave rise to the lawsuit. Fraser v Farvid (2024) 99 Cal. App. 5th 760. In the Fraser case, the court found that the testimony from the homeowners, the neighbors, and an animal control officer, was sufficient to support the finding that the homeowners had no prior knowledge of the dogs’ vicious propensity. An email from a neighbor referring to the dogs as “guard dogs,” was not sufficient to infer such knowledge.
Of course, every case is different and requires analysis of the actual facts, evidence, and the applicable laws. In an older case, the Court found that “it is reasonably foreseeable that a guard dog kept in a business open to the general public will injure someone.” Portillo v Aiassa (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 1128, 1135. The owner of the property in the Portillo case was found negligent because, among other things, they failed to inspect the property, a liquor store, before renewing their tenants’ lease. If they had, they would have seen a “Beware of Dog” sign and a newspaper article posted near the door discussing a recent attack by the dog upon a would-be robber, and thus they would have learned of the dog’s vicious propensity.
Contact The Law Offices of Ali Taheripour
At The Law Offices of Ali Taheripour, we understand the complex legal issues that can arise in California dog bite litigation. 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, including coverage under a homeowner insurance policy.
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.