Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
One who harbors or keeps a wild animal or domestic animal with known dangerous tendencies is strictly liable for the harm it causes. Smith v. Royer (1919) 181 Cal. 165, 168; see also Rest.2d Torts ยง 514.
To prevail on a claim for strict liability for injury caused by a domestic animal with dangerous propensities, a plaintiff must show that:
CACI No. 462.
โCalifornia has long followed the common law rule of strict liability for harm done by a domestic animal with known vicious or dangerous propensities abnormal to its class.โ (Drake v. Dean (1993) 15 Cal. App. 4th 920, 922 citing as examples, Hillman v. Garcia-Ruby (1955) 44 Cal. 2d 625, 626 and authorities cited therein; Hicks v. Sullivan (1932) 122 Cal. App. 635, 638 and authorities cited therein.)
โThis rule is set forth in ยง 509 of the Restatement Second of Torts (Restatement Second):
โCivil Code ยง 3342(a) the California โDog Biteโ Act, which provides in relevant part that โThe owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.โโ (Delfino v. Sloan (1994) 20 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1437.)
A petition to determine if a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious may be brought pursuant to California Food and Agricultural Code ยง 31601, et seq. A hearing on such a petition must be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of the petition and notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. (Cal. Food & Agric. Code, ยง 31621.) At the hearing the court may admit into evidence all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses. (Id.) A finding that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious must be made upon a preponderance of the evidence. (Id.)
โPotentially dangerous dogโ means any of the following:
(Cal. Food & Agric. Code, ยง 31602.)
โVicious dogโ means any of the following:
(Cal. Food & Agric. Code, ยง 31603.)
A severe injury is defined as โany physical injury to a human being that results in muscle tears or disfiguring lacerations or requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic surgery.โ (Cal. Food & Agric. Code, ยง 31604.)
โThis statute specifically establishes a dog owner's liability for the injuries inflicted by the owner's dog, without a showing of willfulness under ยง 20.โ (Id.โciting People v. Berry (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 778, 787, stating in relevant part: โCivil Code ยง 3342 creates a remedy. It allows one to recover damages caused by a dog bite without having to show fault, i.e., under strict liability.โ)
At the hearing the court may admit into evidence all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses. (Food & Agric. Code ยง 31621.) A finding that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious must be made upon a preponderance of the evidence. (Food & Agric. Code ยง 31621.)
โIt is because dangerous propensities are abnormal to dogs as a class that the rule of strict liability comes into play.โ (Drake v. Dean, supra, 15 Cal. App. 4th at 922.) โโOne who keeps a [dog] that to his knowledge is vicious, or which though not vicious possesses dangerous propensities that are abnormal thereby introduces a danger not usual to the community and which, furthermore, is not necessary to the proper functioning of the animal for the purposes that it serves.โโ (Id. citing Rest.2d, ยง 509, com. d.) โโWhen an owner has reason to believe his dog is savage, ill-tempered, mischievous or dangerous to persons and property, he may be kept only at the owner's risk, who will become liable for damages resulting from such conduct of the dog which exhibits such known traits or character.โโ (Drake at 922 citing Hicks v. Sullivan, supra, 122 Cal.App. at 638.)
โThus, one who keeps a large dog that he knows to be accustomed to fawn violently upon children and adults is liable under [ยง 509] for harm done by its dangerous playfulness or over- demonstrative affection... [Likewise] [i]f the possessor knows that his dog has the playful habit of jumping up on visitors, he will be liable without negligence when the dog jumps on a visitor, knocks him down and breaks his hip....โ (Drake v. Dean (1993) 15 Cal. App. 4th at 923 citing Rest.2d, ยง 509, coms. c, i.)
โThe rule of strict liability is exemplified in decisions such as Hicks v. Sullivan (1932) 122 Cal. App. 635 at 637-638. There, the plaintiff was attacked by a dog known to its owner (defendant) to be vicious and ill-tempered. Following judgment for plaintiff, this court affirmed, noting: โMost dogs are usually considered domestic, companionable, good natured and harmless.โโ (Hicks, supra, at 637.) โThey are valuable as watch dogs and for the care of stock. The law recognizes a property valuation in dogs and authorizes the ownership and possession of such animals... [However] โ[w]hen it is once established that the dog is of a vicious and mischievous nature and that the person owning or keeping it had knowledge of that fact, the same responsibility attaches to the owner to keep it from doing mischief as the keeper of an animal (which is) naturally ferocious would be subject to, and proof of negligence on the part of the owner of the dog is unnecessary.โโ (Id.) โโ[T]he gravamen of the action is knowledge of the owner that the beast was the possessor of vicious or mischievous propensities. Negligence or lack of care on the part of the owner in keeping or restraining the animal need not be shown.โโ (Drake v. Dean (1993) 15 Cal. App. 4th at 923 citing Hicks v. Sullivan, supra, 122 Cal.App. at 637-638.)
If so, then every dog in a fenced yard that barked at a passerby would be identified as a dog with dangerous propensities; that is, almost every dog would be considered to have dangerous propensities if such behavior was the test. (Yuzon v.
CLAUS VS CLARK
RIC1903277
Nov 05, 2020
Riverside County, CA
There are no allegations the dog had previously bit or attacked Plaintiff or anyone else, why the dog had vicious and dangerous propensities, or how Li (as the owner of the premises, not the dog) had knowledge of the dogโs vicious and dangerous propensities. Without more, the allegations do not constitute despicable conduct or rise to the level of malice or oppression necessary to plead a claim for punitive damages.
HUERTA VS EDMONDS
CVRI2105485
Mar 28, 2022
Riverside County, CA
There are no allegations the dog had previously bit or attacked Plaintiff or anyone else, why the dog had vicious and dangerous propensities, or how Li (as the owner of the premises, not the dog) had knowledge of the dogโs vicious and dangerous propensities. Without more, the allegations do not constitute despicable conduct or rise to the level of malice or oppression necessary to plead a claim for punitive damages.
HUERTA VS EDMONDS
CVRI2105485
Mar 27, 2022
Riverside County, CA
There are no allegations the dog had previously bit or attacked Plaintiff or anyone else, why the dog had vicious and dangerous propensities, or how Li (as the owner of the premises, not the dog) had knowledge of the dogโs vicious and dangerous propensities. Without more, the allegations do not constitute despicable conduct or rise to the level of malice or oppression necessary to plead a claim for punitive damages.
HUERTA VS EDMONDS
CVRI2105485
Mar 26, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Aside from knowing the tenants kept on the premises a shepherd dog, the landlords knew nothing about the dog, and therefore the facts before the trial court fell short of creating a triable issue of fact as to the landlords' knowledge of any dangerous propensities on the part of the dog. Id. at 818-822. Here, defendant contends that he had not seen the subject dog, had not seen the dog attack or bite anyone, and that he was not advised of any prior incident where the dog attacked or bit anyone.
ARMANDO AMAYA VS FRANK BROWN ET AL
BC643591
Aug 22, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
It is because dangerous propensities are abnormal to dogs as a class that the rule of strict liability comes into play. Id. at 922. One who keeps a dog that to her knowledge is vicious, or which though not vicious possesses dangerous propensities that are abnormal thereby introduces a danger not usual to the community and which, furthermore, is not necessary to the proper functioning of the animal for the purposes that it serves. Id.
BANGSBERG VS CHAMBERLIN
37-2018-00001054-CU-PO-CTL
May 23, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Moreover, in Yuzon, the circumstantial evidence purporting to show that Defendants had actual knowledge of the dogs dangerous propensities, consisted of barking or jumping against the fence, which the court deemed harmless, and insufficient to show actual notice of dangerous propensities. Yuzon v. Collins (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 149, 164. There is no dispute here that Gaertnerโs dog never appeared to show any aggressive tendencies and behaved โtimidlyโ prior to the incident. UF 6.
CALEB SANTERRE VS TUESDAY ENGLISH-PAVEY ET AL
BC633969
Jul 13, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Rodrigue declared she and GHP had no knowledge of Livingstonโs dog or its dangerous propensities and that nobody contacted her or GHP to complain of the dog before the incident. Plaintiff does not establish that contrary facts may exist, such as evidence that Rodrigue or GHP actually had knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities or evidence that complaints about the dog had been made.
TALA TOOTOONCHI VS ROBERT LEVINGSTON ET AL
BC685278
Jun 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendants also cite to the deposition of Plaintiff Sara Castaneda, which does not address any of the Defendantsโ knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities. โQ: Okay. Would they have known โ was this dog walking around with a leather jacket or something? A: No. Q: Okay. No. So thereโs nothing that indicates this dog is somehow a bad dog; right? A: No. โ Motion Ex. A, 24:19-24. Plaintiffโs testimony does not affirm any of the Defendantsโ knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities.
DOROTHY CASTANEDA ET AL VS STEVE ALVARADO ET AL
BC579183
Jul 30, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court finds Defendants have met their initial burden of showing they had no actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities and therefore owed no duty owed to Plaintiff with respect to the dog.
HADERREUS ROSS VS ROLANDO CAMPOS ET AL
BC683468
Apr 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Moreover, in Yuzon, the circumstantial evidence purporting to show that Defendants had actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities, consisted of barking or jumping against the fence, which the court deemed harmless, and insufficient to show actual notice of dangerous propensities. Yuzon v. Collins (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 149, 164. There is no dispute here that Gaertnerโs dog never appeared to show any aggressive tendencies and behaved โtimidlyโ prior to the incident.โ UF 6.
CALEB SANTERRE VS TUESDAY ENGLISH-PAVEY ET AL
BC633969
Jun 08, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
โIt is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenantโs dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm.โ (Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1369.) Actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities can be inferred from circumstantial evidence only the inference is not based on speculation or conjecture. (Uccello v.
GILBERT MOCOGNI, JR VS MICHAEL PAGNOTTA, ET AL.
19STLC03108
Feb 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
California Realty (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 813, 821 (โIt should be emphasized [, however ,] that a duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities.
SEAN LUMPKIN VS JAMES BARROS
BC709310
Mar 04, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Downโs dog at the Property to anyone or anything, or that the dog acted aggressively towards anyone or anything, or otherwise exhibited any dangerous propensities.โ) There is also insufficient evidence that Defendant Smith controlled the property (see Defendantโs Undisputed Material Fact, Nos. 9 and 10 and Declaration of Mary Smith, ยถยถ7 and 8) at the time of the incident. Ucello v.
GAIL THOMAS VS MARY SMITH ET AL
BC618805
Aug 10, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The focal question is not whether Plaintiff took any action to put the Defendants on notice of the dog's dangerous propensities โ it is on whether the Defendants knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities from all of the information available to them.
VASQUEZ VS INSALACO
37-2018-00055855-CU-PO-NC
Dec 05, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
While Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant is not the owner of the dog or that the lease agreement prohibits dogs from being on the property, Plaintiff argues that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Defendant had knowledge of the dog and its dangerous propensities.
TRAN VS. CHOLULA
30-2018-00975435
Jan 14, 2021
Orange County, CA
Here, Jomafa has met its initial burden as the moving party to establish that Jomafa did not have actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities. Jomafa had never received any complaints that any dog on the premises had ever bitten, attacked or caused injury to another person or that any dog had ever escaped or run loose from the premises.
JOSE ORTIZ SANTIAGO VS RICARDO DE LA LUZ ET AL
BC719041
Jan 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiff alleges Edmonds โowned, controlled, possessed and maintained the dog,โ and โlived with the dog and took care of the dog.โ (FAC, ยถ 12.) Plaintiff further alleges Edmonds โdid not take any action to secure the dogs, including but not limited to, leashing the dog, or confining the dogs to an enclosed space.โ (FAC, ยถ 14.) Plaintiff alleges Edmonds โknew or should have known of the vicious and dangerous propensities of the large dogs [sic] and its inclination to attack people.โ (FAC, ยถ 15.)
HUERTA VS EDMONDS
CVRI2105485
Aug 16, 2022
Riverside County, CA
SWH presents undisputed facts showing Plaintiff cannot prove actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities and that there is no basis for an inference that it must have known of the dogโs dangerous propensities. (SWHโs Undisputed Material Facts #11-13, 28 [SWH did not control dog and dog did not previously display dangerous propensity].) Plaintiff does not raise a triable issue of material fact in response.
FCS056971 - MCCLURE, TERRY VS. HERNANDEZ, ADAM; ET AL (DMS)
FCS056971
Feb 01, 2024
Solano County, CA
The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffโs claims fail, as a matter of law, on account of the fact that they had no actual knowledge regarding the dangerous propensities of the dog. The Defendants argue that under Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 514, as landlord they may only be found to have a tort duty if they had โactual knowledgeโ of the dangerous propensities of the dog.
HUSE V. BRESLIN
SCV-258988
Jul 06, 2018
Sonoma County, CA
With respect to dog-bite incidents, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has clearly stated โthat a duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities.โ (Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 514.)
JESSE LEMONS VS. MARY GREENWOOD
19CECG01277
Mar 23, 2023
Fresno County, CA
An exception to this general rule of non-liability applies where a landlord had actual knowledge a dangerous condition, such as the dangerous propensities of a tenant's dog.
PINEDA VS. ALARCON
37-2016-00014166-CU-PO-NC
Aug 22, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
To state a cause of action against Defendants for negligence and premises liability, she must allege Defendants had actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities. (Chee, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1369 [โ[I]t is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenanetโs dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harmโ].)
MIRSITA IRLANDA AVELARDE, ET AL. VS BRIANA SIMONE, ET AL.
19STCV00071
Jun 27, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiff denies that she has facts, documents, or evidence that Moving Defendants had actual knowledge of Herculesโ alleged dangerous propensities. (UMF No. 18, p. 5:16-5:27.) Plaintiff contends that Herculesโ size provided Moving Defendants with sufficient notice that Hercules had dangerous propensities. (UMF Nos. 19-20, p. 6:3-7:4.) Moving Defendants do not own or maintain Hercules. (UMF No. 16, p. 5:8-5:12.)
FLORIDALMA CASTANEDA VS DEBRA D WILLIAMS ET AL
BC688114
Aug 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The bare, conclusory, and boilerplate paragraph stating Defendants knew or should have known of their dogโs dangerous propensities, but nevertheless failed to restrain the dog or warn of its dangerous propensities is insufficient. And even if facts were alleged showing Defendants did know of the probable consequences of failing to restrain the dog or warn of the dogโs dangerous propensities, there are no facts alleged indication Defendants willfully and deliberately ignored those probable consequences.
ANGELICA SERMENO VS JUAN ZAMBRANO, ET AL.
19STCV36021
Jan 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The parties do not dispute that Defendant did not have knowledge of any dangerous propensities of the dog which allegedly attacked Plaintiff. (Plaintiffโs Response to Defendantโs Separate Statement, UMF No. 10.) Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to show he is able to establish that Defendant owed him a duty.
KAYVAN FATHI VS AARON KOHUT, ET AL.
18STCV05025
Jul 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
"[a]n owner of a dog may be held liable for injuries inflicted by it on another person without any showing the dog had any especially dangerous propensities or that the owner knew of any such dangerous propensities. (citing Civ. Code. ยง3342; see also Goldberg v. Rabuchin (1944) 65 Cal.App.2d 111, 114, 149 P.2d 861.) However, to impose liability on someone other than the owner, even a keeper," 'previous knowledge of the dog's vicious nature must appear:" (Id. at 821 citing Buffington v.
SWAGAR VS GENTRY
37-2019-00005115-CU-PO-CTL
Aug 20, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Finally, Vylox argues there is no allegation that Vylox was aware of the dog, and thus, Vylox had no legal duty to Plaintiff with regard to the behavior of the dog. Under current California law, a landlord owes no duty of care to protect a tenant or others from a tenant's dangerous dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities and the right to remove the dog. (Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 507; Chee v.
MAHTAB NATANZADEH VS SHELDON SOURAY, ET AL.
18STCV04319
Aug 27, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendant Teresa Duarte had no knowledge of any vicious or dangerous propensities of the dogs before the attacks. (UMF No. 9.) Plaintiff does not know if the dogs have attacked any other person. (UMF No. 10.) The Court finds Defendant Teresa Duarte has met her burden. The evidence submitted in support of the motion shows Defendant Teresa did not own the dogs, leased property to the owners of the dogs, and did not know of the dogsโ dangerous propensities.
ANGELIQUE RODARTE VS ALBERTO LUIS DUARTE
BC701367
Mar 30, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Jones was attacked and bitten by Defendantsโ dog, and that Defendants knew or should have known of the dogโs dangerous propensities. UF 6-7. The owner of the dog was Robert Kaye. UF 3-4. Plaintiffโs third cause of action is one for premises liability. UF 21. Plaintiffsโ discovery responses did not state any facts on which to base their claim for general negligence. UF 12-13. Instead, Plaintiffs stated that โdiscovery and investigation were continuing.โ UF 13.
DANIELE MCKINNEY ET AL VS MERIDIAN SENIOR LIVING ET AL
BC672253
Jul 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
All of this evidence is a sufficient basis for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the dog had dangerous propensities before plaintiffโs accident and presented a foreseeable risk of harm to persons off the premises.
SANCHEZ VS. JOAKIMSON
MSC16-01708
Dec 14, 2017
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
One dog, Churro, was killed. The other dog escaped the attack. On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for strict liability, general negligence, negligence per se, strict liability causes by domestic animal with dangerous propensities, ultrahazardous activity, trespass to property, and negligent infliction of emotional distress to a bystander.
MARISOL GARCIA, ET AL. VS OLIVER CAJINA, ET AL.
20STCV44843
Aug 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Inglewood Humane Soc. (1942) 51 Cal.App.2d 415, 417, 124 P.2d 870.) (7) CARL cannot be held strictly liable in tort under the Dog Bite Statute. CARL can, however, be held strictly liable in tort under the common law theory that a keeper or possessor or handler knew or should have known of the vicious or dangerous propensities of the dog. The Third Cause of Action of the FAC alleges exactly that: "3.
HUBBARD VS. CANINE ADOPTION
56-2020-00544158-CU-PO-VTA
Nov 03, 2020
Ventura County, CA
Imposition of liability on the landowner requires actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities. Constructive knowledge is not enough to establish a duty of care. Because possession of rented premises is vested in the tenant, actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities is required. Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal. App. 3d 504, 514. As previously discussed, the undisputed facts establish that Defendant did not have actual knowledge of the dogsโ dangerous propensities.
MARCO ARMAS VS JULIA HARRIS ET AL
BC693569
Aug 13, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
PARTYโS REQUEST Defendant/Cross-Complainant Michael Cofsky (โMoving Partyโ) asks the Court to grant summary judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff because he did not have actual knowledge of the subject dogโs dangerous propensities and did not own the subject dog.
JOSE FEDERICO GONZALES VS CHRISTOPHER STEWART LEE ET AL
BC711882
Nov 22, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Second Cause of Action: Common Law Strict Liability based on Known Dangerous Propensities of a Domestic Animal Defendant argues that the second cause of action fails to state facts sufficient and is uncertain because the allegations in the SAC fail to establish that (1) the Defendant owned the cat that bit Plaintiff, (2) that the cat had an unusually dangerous nature and/or tendency and (3) that Defendant knew or should have known that the cat had vicious propensities.
WILLIAM RAMSEY VS THE PASADENA HUMANE SOCIETY
BC707732
Nov 16, 2018
Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action: Common Law Strict Liability based on Known Dangerous Propensities of a Domestic Animal Defendant argues that the second cause of action fails to state facts sufficient and is uncertain because the allegations in the SAC fail to establish that (1) the Defendant owned the cat that bit Plaintiff, (2) that the cat had an unusually dangerous nature and/or tendency and (3) that Defendant knew or should have known that the cat had vicious propensities.
WILLIAM RAMSEY VS THE PASADENA HUMANE SOCIETY
BC707732
Nov 09, 2018
Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle
Los Angeles County, CA
There is no dispute that Bautista Sr. did not have actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities. He declares that he was never given notice of the dogโs dangerous behavior and has never seen the dog attack or bite anyone or otherwise exhibit dangerous behavior. Prior to the incident, he had never received any complaints about the dog and he had never received notice that the dog had ever escaped from the subject property due to any defect in the fence or gate.
SUSANNA KHACHATRYAN VS SALVADOR BAUTISTA
19STCV01943
Oct 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Anthony untied his dog from a security bar outside of an apartment owned by Defendant Armor just prior to the dog biting Plaintiff. (Miguel Mas Depo., p. 9:2-10:9.) Moving Defendant argues that summary judgment is proper because it did not have actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities. (Motion, p. 7:8-7:12.)
MARIA ANDAGUA VS JAMES ARMOR
BC704260
Nov 25, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Even if Schwartz Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff to warn of the dog, Schwartz Defendants evidence shows that they have never seen or heard of the dog doing anything dangerous. (Motion, Schwartz Decl., ยถ 8.) This is sufficient to demonstrate that Schwartz Defendants had no actual knowledge that the dog had any vicious or dangerous propensities. Under these circumstances, Schwartz Defendants also owed no duty of care to Plaintiff. Schwartz Defendants have thus met their burden.
ROMAN MENDEZ VS DONALD FEHMEL, ET AL.
21STCV09434
Jul 14, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Consequently, it is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenantโs dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm.โ (Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal App 4th 1360, 1369.) The landlordโs actual knowledge of the animalโs dangerous propensities is required; โconstructive knowledgeโ will not suffice.
KNUDSEN VS GUTIERREZ
RIC2003965
Dec 30, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Second Cause of Action: Common Law Strict Liability based on Known Dangerous Propensities of a Domestic Animal Moving Party argues that the second cause of action fails to state facts sufficient and is uncertain because the allegations in the FAC fail to establish that (1) the Moving Party owned the cat that bit Plaintiff, (2) that the cat had an unusually dangerous nature and/or tendency and (3) that Moving Party knew or should have known that the cat had vicious propensities.
WILLIAM RAMSEY VS THE PASADENA HUMANE SOCIETY
BC707732
Sep 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
He also states that he did not control the dog, was unaware of any information suggesting that the dog at issue had ever bitten anyone else before, and that he was unaware of any information that would otherwise suggest or cause him to believe that the dog had an unusually dangerous nature or tendency. (Id. at Nos. 34, 36, 38.) Thus, Defendant Tanning has demonstrated he lacked knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities..
STEPHANIE RILEY VS MONSEREAT LARA, ET AL.
18STLC11983
Feb 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court explained: Consequently, it is well-established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenantโs dog unless the landlord had actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm. [citations omitted] A duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities. . . .
COCOCO VS. AZARIAH
MSC17-00978
Apr 19, 2018
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
As a result, Hernandez and Carbajal contend that they owed no duty to protect Plaintiff from the dog. Although Hernandez and Carbajal were aware that co-defendants had a dog on the property, there is no evidence that Hernandez or Carbajal was actually aware of any dangerous propensities the dog may have possessed. (Hernandez Decl. ยถยถ 6-11; Carbajal Decl. ยถยถ 6-11.)
BOGHOS PETROSIAN VS LEO DOPP ET AL
BC662751
Feb 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Aside from knowing the tenants kept on the premises a shepherd dog, the landlords knew nothing about the dog, and therefore the facts before the trial court fell short of creating a triable issue of fact as to the landlords' knowledge of any dangerous propensities on the part of the dog. ( Id. at 818-822.) Here, the tenant Marlena Ranieri owned the dog. (UMF No 17.) Montano was watching the dog temporarily ( Id .) Defendant argues that Aileen L.
MICHAEL TRACEY VS AILEEN L PICKERING ET AL
BC688273
Nov 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants Cerda argue that plaintiff is unable to establish the element of duty because they did not own the dog and had no knowledge of the dangerous propensities of the dog. They owned the rental property where the dog was kept. Plaintiff, who lived approximately 2 1โ2 blocks from the property, had never complained about the dog and had no knowledge of previous dog attacks.
FRANCINE MOURA ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
BC596662
Oct 18, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
The moving Defendants/Landlords have established a lack of knowledge of the presence and/or dangerous propensities of the dog that allegedly injured Plaintiff. See Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1369 ("[I]t is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm."
MICHELLE BAUM VS. JASON DAVIS
56-2017-00493537-CU-NP-VTA
Aug 21, 2018
Vincent O'Neill
Ventura County, CA
Defendant allegedly knew of the dogโs dangerous propensities, including its propensity for threatening and/or attacking others, and that the dog would remain unleashed on and around the property. ยถ 18. Plaintiff alleges that despite Defendantโs knowledge, Defendant did not take any action to cure or ameliorate the risk. ยถ 19. The claims are adequately pled. Plaintiff alleges Defendantโs knowledge of the animalโs dangerous propensities as reference above.
AMARIS REYNA ET AL VS MARCOS PEREZ ET AL
BC621050
Dec 05, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Consequently, it is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm.โ (Chee v. Amanda Gold Property Management( 2006) 143 Cal App 4th 1360, 1369.) The landlordโs actual knowledge of the animalโs dangerous propensities is required; โconstructive knowledgeโ will not suffice.
CRUZ VS HOMEWOOD
RIC1905080
Aug 17, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Defendants were aware and had actual knowledge that the dog possessed dangerous propensities that made it a menace and threat. They knew of the viciousness and dangerousness of the dog and of its inclination, or reasonably should have known those facts. The dog posed a risk of harm by virtue of its breed, and because it had a habit of attacking other dogs and/or people and/or jumping on other dogs and/or people and knocking them down.
JOSE AGUIRRE VS MARIA WARD
1382235
Oct 18, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
However, a landowner does not owe a duty of care for injuries caused by a dog on the premises unless there is evidence that the landlord had actual knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities. Constructive knowledge is not enough to establish a duty of care. Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal. App. 3d 504, 514; Donchin v. Guerrero (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 1832, 1839.
DAVID NATHAN SCHECTER VS RAVINDER ANAND ET AL
BC662705
Oct 29, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
There are no allegations that the dog escaped due to negligent maintenanceas such, the dog itself must have been a known dangerous condition. IRHC were not on actual or constructive notice that the dog would be considered a dangerous condition. IRHC were not aware of any dangerous propensities nor that the dog was any sort of danger to others.
DAVID YAROVOY VS DELORES VARGAS, ET AL.
21STCV16801
Sep 20, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Law Governing Dog Owner Liability for Dog Bites Dog owners may be held liable for injuries caused by their dogs under theories of negligence and strict liability. California has long followed the common law rule of strict liability for harm done by a domestic animal with known vicious or dangerous propensities abnormal to its class. ( Drake v. Dean (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 915, 921.)
JEREMY COHEN VS SYLVIA Y. LUNA, ET AL.
21STCV00772
May 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
There is a common law version of โstrictโ liability for injuries caused by animals with known dangerous propensities. This common law rule has nothing to do with the statutory strict liability rule. They are distinct. Because this common law rule still requires proof that the animal in question had dangerous propensities and that the owner knew about it, this common law rule is sort of a hybrid between ordinary negligence and statutory strict liability.
HEINTZELMAN VS ALAM
30-2019-01078874
Jan 13, 2020
Orange County, CA
โ - Prior to the incident, she โdid not know nor had any reasons to know that [the dog] had any dangerous propensities.โ (Declaration of Rosemary Fourzans, ยถยถ 3-8.) Defendant also proffers Michelle Funaroโs declaration, in which she states: - She is the sole owner of the dog. - Prior to the incident, the dog โnever bit, attacked, or otherwise acted viciously towards another dog or person.
ELLE ESTRADA VS ROSEMARY FOURZANS, ET AL.
19STCV00288
Mar 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Consequently, it is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm." (Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1369.) "[A] duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities.
JOSE MANUEL GARCIA VS. ANITA BERRO
56-2019-00524512-CU-PO-VTA
Apr 08, 2021
Ventura County, CA
As for the negligence/premises liability causes of action, Defendants produced evidence that they had no prior knowledge that the dog that caused Plaintiff to fall and/or attempted to bite him had any vicious or dangerous propensities. They had never witnessed or received any reports or complaints regarding the dog nor did the dog exhibit any vicious tendencies. (UMF 35-41 and Plaintiffโs response thereto.)
FITZGERALD VS HARDY
RIC1903766
Apr 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
.: BC656493 Hearing Date: February 14, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Defendantโs MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION The Court's tentative is to grant summary judgment because there is insufficient evidence to create a triable issue whether Defendant Sharon Jones knew her tenant's dog had dangerous propensities. The parties should be prepared to address this issue at the hearing.
MIGUEL A CORRAL ET AL VS DEBRA DIAZ ET AL
BC656493
Feb 14, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs negligence cause of action fails because it did not own the subject dog and did not know of the dogs dangerous propensities to bite. Civil Code ยง 3342 makes the owner of any dog liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog. . . regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners knowledge of such viciousness.
FRANCESCO CASTILLA, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, KATHY CASTILLA VS TARGET CORPORATION, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION
23PSCV02951
Feb 27, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
[SSUMF #12] When asked in discovery to state all facts in support of his claim that Mori had knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities or had bitten any other person or animal prior to the incident, Murray said the dog has dangerous propensities, has bitten more than one person and the fence was in disrepair.
ROBERT MURRAY VS MARIA DEJESUS
1403235
Jul 23, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
While Plaintiffs opposition does not cite any legal authority either, the Court is aware that California has long established legal precedent regarding strict liability for harm caused by domestic animals with known dangerous propensities. ( Drake, supra, 15 Cal.App.4th at p. 921.) The FAC alleges that Defendants owned the cat in question, the cat attacked other persons on other occasions, Defendants knew about those other attacks, and the cat bit Plaintiff, thereby causing Plaintiff harm.
FRANCES GUNDLACH VS FRANK FLORES, ET AL.
22PSCV01744
Jan 03, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On the basis of Plaintiffsโ allegations that the dangerous condition on SVRโs premises was the โuncontrolled dangerous Doberman Pinscher dog โAce yo> and as the Court previously noted that, โa duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities,โ Plaintiffs were required to allege that SVR knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities. (Yuzon v.
CV2003635
Jun 13, 2023
Marin County, CA
On the basis of Plaintiffsโ allegations that the dangerous condition on SVRโs premises was the โuncontrolled dangerous Doberman Pinscher dog โAce yo> and as the Court previously noted that, โa duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities,โ Plaintiffs were required to allege that SVR knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities. (Yuzon v.
CV2003635
Jun 11, 2023
Marin County, CA
On the basis of Plaintiffsโ allegations that the dangerous condition on SVRโs premises was the โuncontrolled dangerous Doberman Pinscher dog โAce yo> and as the Court previously noted that, โa duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities,โ Plaintiffs were required to allege that SVR knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities. (Yuzon v.
CV2003635
Jun 15, 2023
Marin County, CA
On the basis of Plaintiffsโ allegations that the dangerous condition on SVRโs premises was the โuncontrolled dangerous Doberman Pinscher dog โAce yo> and as the Court previously noted that, โa duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities,โ Plaintiffs were required to allege that SVR knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities. (Yuzon v.
CV2003635
Jun 14, 2023
Marin County, CA
and its dangerous propensities.
MSC20-01785
Sep 21, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
This allegation suggests that Defendant knew his dog possessed dangerous propensities, but that Defendant attempted to keep his dog from harming other people. While the complaint alleges Defendant failed to keep his dog restrained on the day of the incident, there are no facts alleged to show that Defendant did so willfully or deliberately.
PHYLLIS NEWMAN VS EDWARD DOMBOURIAN
20STCV29766
Dec 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Indiana law โimposes on a dog owner the duty of reasonable care, even when the owner is unaware of the dog's vicious or dangerous propensities. [Citation] Without knowledge of the dog's vicious or dangerous propensities, the owner may become liable for damages the dog causes where the owner is otherwise negligent in the manner of his โkeeping and controlโ of the dog.โ Id. at 988.
BONNY KENT ET AL VS KATHERINE LARSEN
1414971
Aug 23, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
The report generated by The County of Los Angeles Department of Animal Care and Control further substantiates the absence of evidence showing Defendant HOA had the requisite knowledge of the dogs dangerous propensities. This is because there is no evidence showing such propensities existed for Defendant HOA to know of them. All evidence shows the dog exhibited dangerous propensities for the first time when it bit Plaintiff on July 10, 2017.
SEAN LUMPKIN VS JAMES BARROS
BC709310
Jul 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Under current California law, a landlord owes no duty of care to protect a tenant or others from a tenant's dangerous dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities and the right to remove the dog. (Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 507; Chee v.
CHRISTOPHER DUNCAN, ET AL. VS BRUCE FARRANTO, ET AL.
20STCV15201
Jun 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendantsโ conflicting testimony regarding the restraint efforts only fuels suspicion that they knew, or had reason to know, that Max would make a run for it if another dog presented a perceived threat to the home. Defendants absolutely had a duty to restrain Max. Whether they breached that duty is a question for the jury. Strict Liability. One who keeps or harbors a dog with unusually dangerous propensities is strictly liable for harm caused by the dog. Priebe v.
ROSEN VS. PORTER
30-2016-00840337-CU-JR-CJC
Jun 08, 2018
Orange County, CA
Neither DeAngelis nor her tenant, Defendant Adamczyk, had ever seen or heard the dog on the premises or had any idea of any dangerous propensities the dog may have had, as neither owned or controlled the dog that bit Plaintiff. Opposition to the motion was due on or before Friday, August 11, 2017. Failure to file and/or serve an opposition constitutes an admission the motion is meritorious. (Rooney v. Vermont Inv. Corp. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 351, 367.)
MORALES VS ROMA FABRICATING CORPORATION
37-2015-00025908-CU-PO-NC
Aug 24, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Here, the alleged intentional act appears to be intentionally entrusting the dog to a dog-walker, with knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities, without sufficiently ensuring that the walker could control the dog, without instructing the dog walker to avoid Plaintiffโs property and without ensuring the dog was muzzled.
DEBORAH SWANSON PATRICK VS ADOLPHO GONZALES, ET AL.
20STCV08643
Sep 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Triable issues of material fact exist as to whether defendant owned, controlled, or maintained the dog as well as defendantโs knowledge of the dogโs dangerous propensities and of plaintiffsโ injuries following the alleged attack. The Court Grants judicial notice of Exhibit RJ1, which is a copy of section 4-5-701 of the City of Irvine Municipal Code, and Exhibit RJ2 which is a copy of section 4-1-45 of the County of Orange Code of Ordinances, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452(c) and (h).
NGUYEN VS. WU
30-2018-00987716-CU-PO-CJC
Jun 17, 2019
Orange County, CA
Moving Parties did not know any dogs kept at the leased property had dangerous propensities. (Ibid.) No one reported to Moving Parties that any dog was on the premises or that any dog at the premises had attacked or bit anyone or otherwise exhibited dangerous propensities. (UMF No. 11.) The Court finds Moving Parties have met their burden. Moving Partiesโ evidence shows they are merely landlords to the owners of the dogs that bit Plaintiff.
KIMIA DAVOODI VS ORLANDO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.
19STCV06243
Jun 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Aside from knowing the tenants kept on the premises a shepherd dog, the landlords knew nothing about the dog, and therefore the facts before the trial court fell short of creating a triable issue of fact as to the landlords' knowledge of any dangerous propensities on the part of the dog. ( Id. at 818-822.) Here, Defendant has come forward with evidence that it did not have any actual knowledge that the dog was dangerous.
JAE WHAN YOO, ET AL. VS WAG LABS, INC., ET AL.
21STCV29098
Jun 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
[A] landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm. [Citations.] . . . [A] duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities.
22AVCV00359
Jan 02, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
โAn owner of a dog may be held liable for injuries inflicted by it on another person without showing the dog had any especially dangerous propensities or that the owner knew of such dangerous propensities. [Citations.] However to impose liability on someone other than the owner, even a keeper, โprevious knowledge of the dogโs vicious nature must appear.โ [Citation].โ (Lundy v. California Realty (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 813, 821.) With respect to the two alleged dog bites that occurred in 2015, and 2016.
HECTOR RENTERIA ET AL VS CASEY PEOPLES ET AL
BC622628
Mar 15, 2018
LORI ANN
Los Angeles County, CA
The general rule is that a landlord is not liable for injuries caused by a tenants dog, unless the landlord knew the dog was dangerous. (Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 510-11.) It is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dogs dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm. (Chee v.
BASHAR DAAS VS BOUTIQUE HOMES LLC, ET AL.
22STCV18563
Feb 22, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant HSBC BANK USA, NA knew, or reasonably should have known, that its tenant harbored a dog with dangerous propensities and/or which constituted a dangerous condition at the premises It is not enough for Plaintiff to allege that HBSC knew that the dog had dangerous propensities. Plaintiff must also allege that HBSC had the power to have taken measures on the property which would have prevented the victimโs injuries. (Donchin v.
JOSE ARTURO CISNEROS VS OSCAR DOMINGO BAUTISTA, ET AL.
19STCV35997
Sep 04, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs have not pled an adequate factual basis to support a finding that Tele Dolphin had or should have had prior knowledge of Peoplesโ known dangerous propensities. The demurrer to the third cause of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.
HECTOR RENTERIA ET AL VS CASEY PEOPLES ET AL
BC622628
Mar 21, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Parties are undisputed that defendant never owned the dog at subject, nor was the defendant made aware of any dangerous propensities of the dog. Defendant has presented sufficient evidence to show plaintiff's causes of action have no merit and there are no triable issues of material fact, thus defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant's evidentiary objections are overruled.
MARILYN SMITH VS. JEREMY TOLE
37-2015-00011944-CU-PO-CTL
Feb 02, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
In opposition, Plaintiffs contend the complaint contains sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages, as the complaint alleges Defendant knew the dog had dangerous propensities and was warned the dog tried to attack Alexโs daughter and Plaintiffsโ dog on many occasions. Plaintiffs contend Defendant knowingly and willfully subject Plaintiffs to the risk of serious harm despite knowing of the dogโs dangerous propensities.
ALEX AYALA, ET AL. VS ADOLFO ACOSTA
21STCV14382
Sep 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
First, the allegation that the dogs were akitas and akitas are dangerous does not put Defendant on notice of his dogsโ dangerous propensities. โA dog is presumed to be tame, docile and harmless until the contrary appears.โ (Drake v. Dean (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 915, 922.) Second, Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts which show that Defendant had notice of the dogโs dangerous propensities. Plaintiff merely states in a conclusory fashion that Defendant was aware of the dogsโ aggressiveness.
SUSAN AND DONALD SANDS VS MARC AND JAIME LESCHER ET AL
BC626746
Sep 30, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
The Declaration of Robin Carder, the HOA President since 2003, states that Defendant had not received any complaints from the subject dog, and therefore, had no actual notice of the dogs dangerous propensities. The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that had Defendant inspected the property that housed the dog (Property), pursuant to the CC&R, it would have obtained notice of the dog. (Opp., 8.)
TATYANA IVANOVA VS XAVIER IBARRA, ET AL.
21STCV28754
Apr 15, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
In cases involving a dog bite, prior behavior may consist of either a vicious bite or behavior that clearly demonstrated the vicious propensity to bite. (Id.) An ownerโs knowledge of a dog's vicious or dangerous propensities may be inferred by: (1) the general reputation of the dog, (2) the size and breed of the dog, or (3) the fact that the dog is kept chained or muzzled. (See Smith v. Royer (1919) 181 Cal. 165, 170; 1 California Torts (1994), "Strict Liability -- Animals," sec. 6.10[3], p. 6-10.)
JOSE MANUEL CHOY VS SUSY SALSBERG ET AL
BC710923
Oct 27, 2020
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Aside from knowing the tenants kept on the premises a shepherd dog, the landlords knew nothing about the dog, and therefore the facts before the trial court fell short of creating a triable issue of fact as to the landlords' knowledge of any dangerous propensities on the part of the dog. (Id. at 818-822.) Here, Dassoff asserts she did not own the subject dogs, as the dogs were owned by Johnโs fianceฬe and his fianceฬeโs mother. (See UMF 11.)
RODGER CARTER VS JEROME JOHNSON, ET AL.
19STCV32624
Mar 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiffโs complaint alleges only that defendants were aware tenant had a pitbull and had โconstructive notice that the dog was on their propertyโฆ.โ (First Amended Complaint, pp. 1 and 3.) As such, the complaint fails to state sufficient allegations showing defendants knew of the dogโs presence on their property and its dangerous propensities.
MARTINEZ V. LUBIAN, ET AL.
VCU 271390
Apr 23, 2018
Tulare County, CA
Plaintiff argues that Defendants make the leap from these cases to conclude no duty if the dog owners did not know about the dangerous propensities of their dogs. Plaintiff has argued that Defendantsโ lack of knowledge of the dangerous propensities of their dogs is not the controlling issue. It is Plaintiffโs position that Defendants undertook the duty to protect Plaintiff and failed to do so.
AIELLO VS. STEFFEN
MSC18-02075
Jan 29, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
The Court herein held: It should be emphasized that a duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities. Because the harboring of pets is such an important part of our way of life and because the exclusive possession of rented premises normally is vested in the tenant, we believe that actual knowledge and not mere constructive knowledge is required.โ (Id. at p. 514.)
KRIS SUNDERLIN VS OSCAR ZEVALOS
BC587632
Jun 09, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
De la Cruz and Sanchez owned, trained, kept, maintained, controlled, and cared for certain mixed breed dog that caused injuries. Id., ยถ6. Prior to January 1, 2016, the dog was possessed of dangerous propensities likely to cause injury to persons, which defendants were, or had they exercised reasonable diligence should have been, aware of.
FLORIDALMA CASTANEDA VS DEBRA D WILLIAMS ET AL
BC688114
Aug 13, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
As a landlord, Defendant argues her liability is limited because she did not know of Zero or his alleged dangerous propensities. Under California law, a landlord who does not have actual knowledge of a tenant's dog's vicious nature cannot be held liable when the dog attacks a third person.
JESUS ANTONIO CORBETON VS MARIA F VILLAREAL
19STCV29091
Apr 14, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
[I]t is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm. ( Chee v. Amanda Goldt Prop. Mgmt. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1369.)
KEISHAWN SIMMONS, A MINOR VS APRIL JENKINS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
19STCV07579
Sep 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Where a landlord is alleged to be liable for a dog bite, a landlord only has a duty of care to third persons to if the landlord had actual knowledge of the dog and its vicious propensities. ( Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 514 ([A] duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities.) Here, Defendant contends she had no actual knowledge of the dogs presence on the property.
JESUS ANTONIO CORBETON VS MARIA F VILLAREAL
19STCV29091
Nov 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The motion, in fact, bases defendants argument on the argument that plaintiff sets forth no facts that defendant knew the dog was at the property or knew of any alleged dangerous propensities of the dog. [Motion, p. 8: 10-11]. As discussed above, this is simply not the case, as the FAC alleges facts supporting a reasonable conclusion that MLT knew the dog was at the property and knew of the alleged dangerous propensities of the subject dog. [FAC, paras. 32-34, 64].
MATTHEW GUTIERREZ VS DENNIS PALUMBO, ET AL.
21STCV13468
Apr 15, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
With respect to a landownerโs duty to third persons regarding the pets of their tenants, the landowner must have actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge, of the dog and its dangerous propensities before a duty will arise. (Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 514.) The landowner has no duty to inspect the premises for dangerous animals. (Id.) Here Defendants did not have actual knowledge that the dog was dangerous. (UMF No. 14, 18.)
DONALD GARNER VS AMBER INVESTMENT GROUP INC ET AL
BC590722
Mar 09, 2017
Brian S. Currey or John A. Slawson
Los Angeles County, CA
Based on Plaintiff's admission that Defendant did not own the dog, he cannot establish the elements of negligence. Plaintiff's premises liability cause of action also fails. "[I]t is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm." (Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1369-1370.)
MONTGOMERY VS. STICKLES
37-2016-00023383-CU-PO-NC
Aug 03, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiffโs testimony also suggests the dog had dangerous propensities which gives rise to a cross-complaint against Barbara Marzec. (Rother Decl., ยถ 5.) No opposition was filed to this Motion. Defendantโs proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same act or occurrence underlying the complaint and Defendant acted in good faith in seeking leave to file the cross-complaint at this time.
JOSHUA MERCADO VS BARBARA MARZEC ET AL
BC715877
Jul 17, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The general rule is that a landowner is not liable for injuries caused by a guests dog, unless the landowner knew the dog was dangerous. ( Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 510-11.) It is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dogs dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm. ( Chee v.
NICHOLAS MATEO NAVAS VS LYNN CHRISTINE PELKEY
20STCV01168
Mar 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.