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)

SABRINA BUGARIN VS MATTHEW ALTSHULE

California Realty (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 813, 821 [“It 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. 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”].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CLAUS VS CLARK

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.

  • Hearing

HUBBARD VS. CANINE ADOPTION

) (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.

  • Hearing

JOSE MANUEL CHOY VS SUSY SALSBERG ET AL

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 owner’s 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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SUSANNA KHACHATRYAN VS SALVADOR BAUTISTA

There is no dispute that Bautista Sr. did not have actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities. He declares that he was never given notice of the dog’s 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BETTY LONG V. CITY OF EXETER

At issue in Johnson, was the state’s placement of a teen-aged parolee with homicidal tendencies into the plaintiff’s home, without cautioning the family about his dangerous propensities, despite the fact that the placement officer was aware of the danger. After the teen assaulted the plaintiff, she sued the state, which obtained summary judgment pursuant to section 820.2. The Supreme Court reversed.

  • Hearing

CHERYL MAISEL VS COUNTRY GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Chee court examined the hazard of a tenant’s dog and explained that “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.” (Id. at p. 1369.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

IDUVINA ARTEAGA VS 1 THROUGH 100 DOES

Merely having a dog on a leash, without a muzzle, with knowledge of the dog’s unclear dangerous propensities when the dog bites another person is insufficient. Such conduct does not have the character of outrage frequently associated with crime. As such, the prayer for punitive damages is properly stricken. CONCLUSION The motion to strike is therefore GRANTED with 20 days’ leave to amend. The Court STRIKES paragraph four on page six of the complaint where Plaintiff requests punitive damages.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DEBORAH SWANSON PATRICK VS ADOLPHO GONZALES, ET AL.

Here, the alleged intentional act appears to be intentionally entrusting the dog to a dog-walker, with knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities, without sufficiently ensuring that the walker could control the dog, without instructing the dog walker to avoid Plaintiff’s property and without ensuring the dog was muzzled.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSE ARTURO CISNEROS VS OSCAR DOMINGO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

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 victim’s injuries. (Donchin v.

  • Hearing

TREVOR PAOUR VS TRACI LYNN GAYNOR, ET AL.

Moreover, Plaintiff contends that in the absence of a declaration or admissible evidence, it has not been established that Pierce did not know of any dangerous propensities of the Gaynors as his tenants, or that dangers the daycare presented. Plaintiff further asserts discovery is ongoing and it has not been shown Plaintiff cannot obtain such evidence.

  • Hearing

MAHTAB NATANZADEH VS SHELDON SOURAY, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SWAGAR VS GENTRY

"[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. §3342; 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WEI JUN HU VS JOHN AN ET AL

Liability of Keeper, Harborer, or Landlord While Civil Code § 3342 provides strict liability for the dog owner, the keeper or harborer of the dog can be held liable if he or she had previous knowledge of the dog’s dangerous or vicious propensities. (Smith v. Royer ((1919) 181 Cal. 165; Menches v. Inglewood Humane Soc. (1942) 51 Cal.App.2d 415.) Similarly, “a duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities.” (Yuzon v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KAYVAN FATHI VS AARON KOHUT, ET AL.

The parties do not dispute that Defendant did not have knowledge of any dangerous propensities of the dog which allegedly attacked Plaintiff. (Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Separate Statement, UMF No. 10.) Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to show he is able to establish that Defendant owed him a duty.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ELLE ESTRADA VS ROSEMARY FOURZANS, ET AL.

- Prior to the incident, she “did not know if a single occasion where Dante bit, attacked, or otherwise acted dangerously toward another dog or person.” - Prior to the incident, she “never saw Dante bite, attack, or otherwise act aggressively or viciously towards another animal or a person.” - Prior to the incident, she “did not know nor had any reasons to know that Dante had any dangerous propensities.” (Declaration of Rosemary Fourzans, ¶¶ 3-8.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

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

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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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

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

  • 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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.