Animal Attack Claims FAQ

Unlike dog bites, which are covered by California's strict liability statute under Civil Code Section 3342, attacks by other animals are generally governed by common law negligence principles. To recover damages for a non-dog animal attack, the victim typically must prove that the animal's owner or keeper knew or should have known about the animal's dangerous propensities and failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the attack.

This is sometimes called the "one bite rule" because it traditionally required evidence that the animal had previously exhibited dangerous behavior. However, California courts have interpreted this broadly, and knowledge of dangerous propensities can be established through evidence of the animal's breed characteristics, previous aggressive behavior toward people or other animals, or the general nature of the species if it is inherently dangerous. For livestock and farm animals, additional statutes may apply, including laws about fencing requirements and animal trespass.

Yes, you can pursue a claim for injuries from a cat attack in California, but unlike dog bite cases, there is no strict liability statute for cat attacks. Instead, you must prove the owner was negligent by showing they knew or should have known the cat had dangerous tendencies and failed to take reasonable precautions.

Evidence of the owner's knowledge can include prior scratching or biting incidents, aggressive behavior witnessed by neighbors or visitors, the owner's own statements about the cat's temperament, or breed-specific characteristics if relevant. Cat attacks can cause serious injuries including deep scratches and bites that frequently become infected due to bacteria in cats' mouths and claws. Cat scratch disease, caused by Bartonella bacteria, is a recognized medical condition that can result from cat attacks. Recoverable damages include medical expenses for treating wounds and infections, lost wages, pain and suffering, and scarring.

Horse-related injury claims in California involve complex liability issues that depend heavily on the circumstances of the injury. For injuries caused by a horse's aggressive behavior such as biting or kicking, the owner or keeper may be liable under negligence principles if they knew or should have known about the horse's dangerous propensities. However, California Civil Code Section 3342(c) expressly excludes horses from the dog bite strict liability statute, meaning negligence must be proven.

For injuries occurring during equestrian activities such as riding lessons or trail rides, California's equine liability statute, Civil Code Section 1714.1, provides some protection to operators of equestrian facilities. This statute limits liability for injuries inherent to equestrian activities but does not protect operators who provide faulty tack or equipment, fail to make reasonable efforts to determine the rider's ability, are negligent in matching horse to rider, or commit other negligent acts. Boarding facilities may face liability for negligent care of horses.

When livestock escapes confinement and causes injury or property damage in California, liability depends on whether the animal was in an open range area or a non-open range area. In non-open range areas, which include most urban and suburban regions, California Food and Agricultural Code Sections 17001-17128 generally impose liability on livestock owners for damages caused by their animals.

The owner has a duty to keep livestock properly confined, and failure to do so resulting in escape and injury creates liability. If livestock escapes and causes a vehicle accident, the owner may be liable for vehicle damage, personal injuries, and related losses. However, California still has some designated open range areas, primarily in rural and agricultural regions, where livestock may lawfully roam. In true open range areas, the burden shifts, and motorists may bear more responsibility for avoiding livestock on roads. The specific rules vary by county, as local ordinances may override state open range laws.

California law treats wild and exotic animal attacks differently from domestic animal attacks because wild animals are considered inherently dangerous regardless of their individual behavior history. Under the doctrine of strict liability for wild animals, owners and keepers of wild or exotic animals are strictly liable for injuries caused by those animals, meaning the victim does not need to prove negligence or prior knowledge of dangerous propensities.

This doctrine applies to animals such as big cats, bears, wolves, primates, venomous snakes, and other species not typically domesticated. California also heavily regulates the ownership of exotic animals through the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Many exotic species require permits, and some are completely prohibited as private pets. Businesses that display or use wild animals, such as zoos, circuses, and entertainment companies, face strict liability for animal attacks and must maintain substantial liability insurance.

Yes, you may have legal remedies even if an animal has not yet caused physical injury but engages in repeated threatening behavior or harassment. Under California Civil Code Section 3479, a private nuisance exists when an activity interferes with the use and enjoyment of your property, which can include a neighbor's animal that continually barks, threatens you when you enter your yard, or otherwise creates an intolerable situation.

You can seek an injunction requiring the neighbor to control the animal, damages for decreased property value or mental distress, and abatement of the nuisance. Local animal control agencies may also take action against animals that habitually menace neighbors. If the animal has made actual threatening lunges or attempted attacks without causing injury, you may have grounds for assault claims, as assault requires only apprehension of imminent harmful contact, not actual contact. Document every incident thoroughly with dates, times, photographs, videos, and witness statements.

Victims of animal attacks in California can recover comprehensive damages for their injuries. Economic damages include all medical expenses both past and future, including emergency care, surgery, hospitalization, medication, physical therapy, and any needed reconstructive or cosmetic procedures. Lost wages during recovery and lost earning capacity if injuries affect your long-term ability to work are also recoverable.

Non-economic damages compensate for pain and suffering, emotional distress, anxiety and fear related to the attack, disfigurement from scarring, and reduced quality of life. Animal attacks can cause significant psychological trauma including PTSD, especially if the victim is a child or the attack was particularly violent. If the animal owner's conduct was particularly egregious, such as knowingly keeping a dangerous animal without precautions or intentionally using an animal to attack someone, punitive damages may be available. California does not cap non-economic or punitive damages in animal attack cases.

Zoos, animal parks, and wildlife sanctuaries in California can face significant liability for animal attacks under several legal theories. As keepers of wild and exotic animals, these facilities are generally subject to strict liability, meaning they can be held responsible for injuries even without proof of negligence. However, the application of strict liability to modern accredited zoos is debated, with some courts applying a negligence standard instead.

Under negligence theory, the facility must exercise reasonable care in containing animals, maintaining barriers, and protecting visitors. This includes adequate enclosures that prevent both animal escapes and visitor intrusions, proper warning signage, appropriate staffing and supervision, and regular safety inspections. Many animal facilities use liability waivers, but these may not protect against negligence claims, especially for injuries to children who cannot legally consent to waive rights. Government-owned zoos may have some immunity under the California Government Claims Act, but immunity is limited.

After an animal attack, your immediate priorities should be safety and medical care, followed by evidence preservation. First, get to safety away from the animal and call 911 if injuries are serious. Seek medical attention promptly, as animal attacks can cause serious infections even from seemingly minor wounds. Tell medical providers exactly what animal attacked you so they can assess rabies risk and infection concerns.

While still at the scene if possible, document everything by taking photographs and videos of the animal, the location, and your injuries. Get the animal owner's name, address, phone number, and insurance information. Identify any witnesses and get their contact information. Report the attack to local animal control, which is required for certain animals and creates an official record. Preserve physical evidence including torn clothing. Take photographs of your injuries daily as they heal. Keep a journal documenting your pain levels, medical appointments, and how the injuries affect your daily life.

If your animal attacks a trespasser in California, your liability depends on the type of animal and the circumstances of the attack. For dogs specifically, California Civil Code Section 3342 imposes strict liability only when the victim was lawfully on the property, so trespassing is a complete defense to strict liability dog bite claims. However, strict liability does not apply to non-dog animals anyway, so the analysis differs.

For all animals, property owners still owe trespassers a duty not to willfully or wantonly injure them. If you intentionally release an animal to attack someone or set up an animal as a trap knowing trespassers are likely, you may face both civil and criminal liability regardless of the victim's trespassing status. Criminal liability under Penal Code Section 399 for injuries caused by dangerous animals requires only that the owner knew of the animal's dangerous propensities and failed to exercise ordinary care, without any exception for trespassers. The best practice is to ensure all animals are properly contained and to post warning signs.