Dog Bite Defenses FAQ

The provocation defense is one of the most significant defenses available to dog owners under California law. If the victim provoked the dog before being bitten, the owner may be completely relieved of strict liability under Civil Code Section 3342. Provocation includes intentional acts that would reasonably be expected to cause a dog to react defensively or aggressively. This can include hitting, kicking, poking, pulling the dog's tail or ears, teasing, tormenting, or cornering the dog.

However, the provocation must be sufficient to cause a reasonable dog to bite. Minor, unintentional contact or actions that would not normally provoke aggression typically do not constitute provocation. California courts analyze provocation from the dog's perspective, asking whether the victim's conduct would naturally cause a dog to react defensively. The defense applies even when the victim did not intend to provoke the dog, as the focus is on the nature of the conduct rather than the intent behind it. Children present special considerations because their actions may not rise to the level of legal provocation.

Yes, trespassing is a complete defense to strict liability under California Civil Code Section 3342, which explicitly requires that the bite victim be lawfully present on the property. If a person is trespassing when bitten, the dog owner is not strictly liable for the injuries. However, this does not mean trespassers have no legal recourse whatsoever.

Under California's premises liability laws, property owners still owe trespassers a duty not to willfully or wantonly injure them. If a dog owner intentionally releases a dog to attack a trespasser or knows that a dangerous dog is likely to attack and fails to provide any warning, the trespasser may still have a negligence-based claim. Additionally, the trespassing defense may not apply to certain individuals who technically enter property without explicit permission but have implied consent, such as delivery workers approaching the front door, meter readers, or individuals responding to emergencies. The defense requires that the trespasser was actually trespassing at the moment of the bite.

Assumption of risk is a defense that may reduce or eliminate a dog owner's liability when the victim knowingly encountered a risk of being bitten. California recognizes both express and implied assumption of risk. Express assumption occurs when someone explicitly agrees to accept the risk of injury, such as signing a waiver before working at an animal shelter or veterinary clinic.

Implied assumption of risk applies when a person's conduct demonstrates voluntary acceptance of a known danger. For example, a professional dog trainer, veterinarian, or groomer who handles dogs regularly may be found to have assumed the inherent risks of their profession. Under California's primary assumption of risk doctrine, certain activities have inherent risks that participants accept simply by engaging in the activity. However, assumption of risk typically does not apply to social visitors or people performing routine activities who have no special knowledge of a particular dog's dangerous propensities. The defense is evaluated based on what the victim actually knew about the specific risk, not just general knowledge that dogs can bite.

California Civil Code Section 3342(b) provides a specific exception for veterinary professionals that limits the strict liability rule. Under this exception, dog owners are not strictly liable for bites that occur while the dog is being treated by a licensed veterinarian or veterinary technician. This exception recognizes that veterinary professionals knowingly accept certain risks inherent to working with animals and have specialized training in animal handling and behavior.

The exception applies when the bite occurs during the course of professional treatment and the veterinarian or technician is performing within the scope of their licensed activities. However, this exception does not provide complete immunity. Veterinary professionals may still pursue negligence claims against dog owners who fail to disclose known dangerous propensities or who actively misrepresent their dog's temperament. If an owner lies about their dog's bite history and the dog subsequently bites a veterinarian, the owner may still be liable under negligence theory. The exception also may not apply to non-licensed staff at veterinary facilities, such as receptionists or kennel assistants.

While self-defense and defense of others are recognized legal justifications in California, they typically apply to the dog's conduct being a reasonable response to a threat rather than as a formal defense to strict liability claims. If a dog bites someone who was attacking the dog's owner or another person, the owner may argue that the bite was a justified defensive response.

California courts recognize that dogs naturally protect their owners and that bites occurring during genuine protective situations may be viewed differently than unprovoked attacks. However, the response must be proportionate to the threat, and the person bitten must have been engaging in threatening conduct that would reasonably cause the dog to react defensively. This defense is closely related to provocation but focuses on the victim's threatening behavior toward others rather than toward the dog itself. To succeed with this defense, the owner must demonstrate that the victim posed an actual threat of harm, the dog's response was a natural protective reaction, and the level of force was reasonable under the circumstances.

California follows a pure comparative negligence system under Civil Code Section 1714, which can reduce a dog bite victim's recovery based on their percentage of fault. However, the application of comparative negligence in dog bite cases is nuanced because it interacts with the strict liability statute. For strict liability claims under Civil Code Section 3342, certain conduct like provocation or trespassing may provide complete defenses rather than merely reducing damages proportionally.

For negligence-based claims, which apply to non-bite injuries or when strict liability defenses partially succeed, comparative negligence reduces recovery by the victim's percentage of fault. For example, if a victim is found 30% at fault for ignoring warning signs about an aggressive dog, their recovery would be reduced by 30%. California's pure comparative negligence rule allows recovery even if the victim is more than 50% at fault. The fault allocation is determined by the jury, which considers all circumstances including the victim's knowledge of the dog's temperament, any warning signs ignored, and the reasonableness of both parties' conduct.

California law provides specific immunities and defenses for bites by military and police dogs under certain circumstances. Civil Code Section 3342 exempts dog bites that occur while a military or police dog is defending itself, assisting law enforcement in apprehending suspects, investigating crimes, or executing warrants, provided the governmental agency has adopted a written policy on the use of dogs and the dog was used in accordance with that policy.

This immunity extends to situations where the dog is protecting itself from annoying, harassing, or provoking conduct, or defending its handler or another person. However, this immunity is not absolute. If the police or military handler directs the dog to bite someone in violation of department policy, or if excessive force is used, immunity may not apply. Victims of improper police dog bites may need to pursue claims under federal civil rights laws, particularly 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging excessive force. Government tort immunity rules under the California Government Code also affect these claims.

In California, posting a "Beware of Dog" sign does not automatically shield owners from strict liability under Civil Code Section 3342. The strict liability statute makes owners responsible for bites regardless of their knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities or efforts to warn others. Therefore, a warning sign alone is not a complete defense.

However, warning signs may be relevant in certain contexts. They can support an assumption of risk defense if combined with other evidence showing the victim had actual knowledge of the danger and voluntarily chose to encounter it. Signs may also be relevant in negligence claims, helping establish that the owner took reasonable precautions. For claims against landlords or property managers, warning signs may demonstrate awareness of the dog's presence. Ironically, prominent warning signs could be used as evidence that the owner knew the dog was dangerous, which while not relevant to strict liability, could support punitive damages claims if the owner took inadequate precautions. The most effective approach combines warning signs with physical barriers, proper restraints, and appropriate insurance coverage.

If a dog bite victim was committing a crime at the time of the bite, this can significantly impact their ability to recover damages in California. Criminal conduct often overlaps with trespassing, which is a complete defense to strict liability under Civil Code Section 3342. Additionally, California courts may apply the doctrine of unclean hands or bar recovery under public policy principles when the victim was engaged in illegal activity.

For example, a burglar who is bitten while breaking into a home would likely be barred from recovery. The illegal conduct defense is strongest when the criminal activity directly relates to the circumstances of the bite, such as breaking and entering, assault, or theft. If the victim was committing an unrelated minor offense that did not contribute to the bite occurring, the defense may be weaker. California courts balance the severity of the illegal conduct against the severity of the injuries and the owner's own conduct. Additionally, comparative negligence principles may reduce recovery for victims whose illegal conduct contributed to the incident.

Landlords have several defenses available when sued for bites by tenants' dogs, primarily because they are not subject to strict liability under Civil Code Section 3342, which applies only to dog owners. To hold a landlord liable, the victim must prove negligence, which requires showing the landlord knew or should have known about the dog's dangerous propensities and had the ability to remove the animal or take protective measures.

The primary defense for landlords is lack of knowledge. If the landlord was unaware of the dog's dangerous nature, they generally cannot be held liable even if the tenant knew. Landlords should maintain records of property inspections and any complaints received. Another defense is lack of control, as landlords typically have limited ability to control animals on leased premises. However, this defense weakens if the lease contained pet restrictions that were not enforced. Landlords may also argue that the bite occurred in an area outside their control, such as inside the tenant's unit rather than common areas. Acting reasonably upon learning of a dangerous dog, such as initiating eviction proceedings, may demonstrate the landlord fulfilled their duty of care.