Animals with Dangerous Propensities (e.g., Dogs)

Useful Rulings on Animals with Dangerous Propensities (e.g., Dogs)

Recent Rulings on Animals with Dangerous Propensities (e.g., Dogs)

SEAN LUMPKIN VS JAMES BARROS

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

BREHEDA VS. BULLOTTA

Here, the complaint alleges only that defendants owned the bit bull that caused plaintiff’s injury, knew of its dangerous propensities, and showed a disregard for the safety and well-being of others by bringing it to a public park or allowing it to be there. (Complaint, ¶ 8, 33, 53.) The complaint also inconsistently alleges that defendants failed to control the pit bull, even as it alleges that someone else – a dog walker – was walking the dog at the time of the incident. (¶ 10, 44.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

KIMIA DAVOODI VS ORLANDO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

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 Parties’ evidence shows they are merely landlords to the owners of the dogs that bit Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ELLE ESTRADA VS ROSEMARY FOURZANS, ET AL.

” - Prior to the incident, she “did not know nor had any reasons to know that [the dog] had any dangerous propensities.” (Declaration of Rosemary Fourzans, ¶¶ 3-8.) Defendant also proffers Michelle Funaro’s declaration, in which she states: - She is the sole owner of the dog. - Prior to the incident, the dog “never bit, attacked, or otherwise acted viciously towards another dog or person.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KRISTIN ELIZABETH WRIGHT VS BRITTEN DAVID LOMONACO ET AL

A property owner has a duty of care to prevent dog bites when the it has actual knowledge that a dangerous animal is on the premises, and it has the right to remove the animal. (Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 514.) Defendant proffers his own declaration in support of his argument that he was not aware of the dog’s dangerous propensities.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

STEPHANIE RILEY VS MONSEREAT LARA, ET AL.

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 dog’s dangerous propensities..

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AIELLO VS. STEFFEN

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 Defendants’ lack of knowledge of the dangerous propensities of their dogs is not the controlling issue. It is Plaintiff’s position that Defendants undertook the duty to protect Plaintiff and failed to do so.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

JONI FRASER VS EVIE CROCKER ET AL

When faced with evidence that they DID know the dogs were on the property, Defendants (in reply) concede as much, but continue to argue they lacked notice of the dogs’ dangerous propensities.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSE ORTIZ SANTIAGO VS RICARDO DE LA LUZ ET AL

Here, Jomafa has met its initial burden as the moving party to establish that Jomafa did not have actual knowledge of the dog’s 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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANGELICA SERMENO VS JUAN ZAMBRANO, ET AL.

The bare, conclusory, and boilerplate paragraph stating Defendants knew or should have known of their dog’s 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 dog’s dangerous propensities, there are no facts alleged indication Defendants willfully and deliberately ignored those probable consequences.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

HEINTZELMAN VS ALAM

There is a common law version of “strict” 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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

LUISINA BLANDO VS PATHWAY PARTNERS VET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

CACI 462, however, does not govern strict liability for dog bites; 462 governs “domestic animals with dangerous propensities,” and the directions on the instruction specify that strict liability for dog bites is governed by 463, not 462. Therefore, CACI 463 governs strict liability for dog bites; indeed, CACI 463 is called “Dog Bite Statute (Civil Code, §3342 – Essential Factual Elements.”

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VASQUEZ VS INSALACO

The focal question is not whether Plaintiff took any action to put the Defendants on notice of the dog's dangerous propensities – 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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VASQUEZ VS INSALACO

The focal question is not whether Plaintiff took any action to put the Defendants on notice of the dog's dangerous propensities – 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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NATALIE PAGE VS TROY CONRAD ET AL

The discovery responses also state that Plaintiff does not know whether the dog displayed dangerous propensities prior to the attack, and has no knowledge of facts to support her contention that Defendant knew of the dog’s violent propensities prior to the incident. (Declaration of Jie Lien, Exhibit C, pp. 5-6.) This evidence satisfies Defendant’s burden, shifting the burden to Plaintiff. Plaintiff relies on her own declaration, which states that Conrad brought the dog to the coffee shop without a leash.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

MARLIES HAGEN VS MICHAEL MILLER

Plaintiff’s evidence shows that Defendant’s dogs had attacked another dog prior to attacking Plaintiff while the front door was open. A reasonable inference is that the front door’s lock malfunctioned and allowed the dogs out of the home. As stated above, Defendant does not submit evidence showing he fixed the defective lock. Additionally, the declaration of Ms. Milliken shows that Defendant knew of the attack and his dogs’ dangerous propensities.

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIA ANDAGUA VS JAMES ARMOR

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 dog’s dangerous propensities. (Motion, p. 7:8-7:12.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2019

JOSE FEDERICO GONZALES VS CHRISTOPHER STEWART LEE ET AL

PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant/Cross-Complainant Michael Cofsky (“Moving Party”) asks the Court to grant summary judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff because he did not have actual knowledge of the subject dog’s dangerous propensities and did not own the subject dog.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANETA ZELENSKY VS PETER KIVMAN, ET AL.

The Complaint adequately alleges that the dog was off-leash and unrestrained on a public sidewalk and on the street. Allegation that the Defendants were aware or should have been aware of the dog’s dangerous propensities: Defendants have not shown that such allegations must be plead with specificity. The Defendants’ awareness of the dog’s dangerous propensities is sufficiently alleged. The allegations based on information and belief are also sufficient.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JAY RICHMOND, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ANDREA MESSINA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

To prevail on a claim for strict liability for injury caused by a domestic animal with dangerous propensities, a plaintiff must show that: (1) defendant owned, kept, or controlled an animal; (2) the animal had an unusually dangerous nature or tendency; (3) before plaintiff was injured, defendant knew or should have known that the animal had this nature or tendency; (4) plaintiff was harmed; and (5) the animal’s unusually dangerous nature or tendency was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HEINTZELMAN VS ALAM

As for defendant’s dog pushing plaintiff over, “strict” liability would only attach if defendant’s dog was known by defendant to have dangerous propensities for knocking people over. See Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1162; Salinas v. Martin (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 404, 416-417. For example, with an animal known for jumping on people and knocking them over, the owner would be liable for injuries caused by such conduct.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2019

SABINA JOHANIS VS PASCUAL CHAVEZ ET AL

A common law claim for injury sustained from a dog bite may be maintained against the owner or keeper of a dog if that person knew or had reason to know of the dog’s vicious propensities. Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, 1115; Hillman v. Garcia-Ruby (1955) 44 Cal.2d 625, 626. None of the requests for admission are probative of the issue of Defendants’ knowledge of the dogs’ dangerous propensities. Motion, Ex. A. The motion for judgment on the pleadings on this claim is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SABINA JOHANIS VS PASCUAL CHAVEZ ET AL

A common law claim for injury sustained from a dog bite may be maintained against the owner or keeper of a dog if that person knew or had reason to know of the dog’s vicious propensities. Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, 1115; Hillman v. Garcia-Ruby (1955) 44 Cal.2d 625, 626. None of the requests for admission are probative of the issue of Defendants’ knowledge of the dogs’ dangerous propensities. Motion, Ex. A. The motion for judgment on the pleadings on this claim is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Kristin S. Escalante or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FLORIDALMA CASTANEDA VS DEBRA D WILLIAMS ET AL

Plaintiff denies that she has facts, documents, or evidence that Moving Defendants had actual knowledge of Hercules’ alleged dangerous propensities. (UMF No. 18, p. 5:16-5:27.) Plaintiff contends that Hercules’ 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.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2019

TRACEY AMIREH VS MALIBU RIDERS INC

Plaintiff alleges defendant’s horses had dangerous propensities and were not suitable for riding. Additionally, plaintiff alleges defendant’s guide was poorly trained and inexperienced and the ride’s location was unsafe. Negligence Claim Under primary assumption of risk, participants in certain recreational activities have no duty of ordinary care to protect other participants from risks inherent in the activity. Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, 1152. It is a complete bar to recovery.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.