Strict Liability Has Real Limits
California’s dog bite statute favors injured people, but it is not absolute. Under California Civil Code Section 3342, an owner is liable when a bite happens in a public place or while the victim is lawfully on private property, which means the law carves out situations where a bite victim was not legally entitled to be where the bite occurred. Understanding these boundaries matters just as much as understanding the general rule, since an insurer will often lean on one of these exceptions before conceding a claim.
Trespassing Can Defeat a Claim
If the injured person was on the property without permission or a legal right to be there, the strict liability protection generally does not apply. This does not always end a case, since a negligence claim may still be possible if the owner intentionally used the dog to threaten or attack a trespasser, but it does remove the simpler path to recovery that the statute otherwise provides. Whether someone counts as a trespasser can turn on fine details, such as an implied invitation from a delivery driver’s routine route.
Provocation Is a Common Defense
Dog owners frequently argue that the victim provoked the animal, whether by teasing, cornering, or startling it. Courts weigh this defense based on the specific facts, and a young child’s actions are typically judged differently than an adult’s. A Monterey dog bite lawyer often works to gather witness accounts and any available video to counter this kind of argument before it shapes a settlement offer, since the provocation defense can be raised even in cases where the initial interaction seemed harmless.
Other Exceptions Worth Knowing
A few additional situations can limit or eliminate strict liability under the statute, and each one requires its own kind of proof:
- Bites by police or military dogs performing official duties
- Bites occurring while the victim was committing certain crimes
- Cases where the dog was working under a boarding or veterinary agreement
- Situations where a different legal theory, rather than the bite statute, applies
Working Through a Disputed Claim
When an insurer raises one of these defenses, the case often turns on documentation gathered close to the time of the incident. The team at Mitchell & Danoff Law Firm, Inc investigates the property, any prior incidents involving the dog, and witness accounts to determine whether an exception genuinely applies or is simply being used to avoid paying a valid claim.
When a Negligence Claim May Still Apply
A Monterey dog bite lawyer can also help identify whether a negligence claim remains available even where strict liability does not, since these two paths do not always rise or fall together.
If an insurer has denied your dog bite claim based on one of these exceptions, reach out to our office to discuss whether that denial holds up and what the next steps might look like.