California Dog Bite Lawyers in Southern and Northern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, Santa Clara County, Attorneys serving Victims of Dog Bites.
Our California dog bite lawyers have made a study of dog bite laws nationally, and are available to consider dog bite cases throughout the United States, with affiliate counsel in every state. Our dog bite attorneys are available to consider cases throughout Northern and Southern California from San Diego to Sacramento, from Orange County to San Jose and Santa Clara County, from Los Angeles to the San Francisco bay area. As the discussion below will make plain, "dog bite law" is different from the law that would apply in ordinary negligence cases, and it varies from state to state. The success of the case may turn on issues of "collectability," for example, the potential for landlord liability, and as we discuss on our "Serious Injury Lawyers" page, every case involving serious injuries is complex, recommending that the dog bite victim seek the advice and representation of appropriately knowledgeable and experienced dog bite attorneys. If you or a loved one has been the victim of a dog bite, you are welcome to contact our dog bite lawyers for a "case evaluation." Whether you were injured in California or another state, simply fill out the "Dog Bite Lawyers Contact Form" and one of our Henke Law Group lawyers or affiliate dog bite attorneys will contact you. Our California Dog Bite Lawyers Explain Why "Dog Bite Law" is Complex, Requiring Assessment by Attorneys Knowledgeable and Experienced in Dog Bite Litigation.
Dog Bite Law Varies From State to State Requiring that Each Case Be Analyzed by Lawyers Specifically Knowledgeable About the Law of the Particular State.
Below our California dog bite lawyers will discuss the specific California legislation and case law pertaining to California dog bite litigation, however, first we must make plain to those who were injured in other states that dog bite law is not consistent across the United States and that indeed every state has its own legislation defining the theory and elements of the causes of action available to the victim of a dog bite.
Our California dog bite lawyers have done comprehensive research with regard to the laws of all states as they apply to dog bite liability and the one thing that is clear is that there is very wide variance between the states statutes and case law. In approximately one third of the states, for example, the "one bite rule" still exists in one form or another, stemming back to old English common law. The "one bite law" or "first bite law" in lay terms is essentially a recognition that dog owners should be held liable based upon their knowledge of their dog's potentially vicious or dangerous propensities, generally insulating the owner from liability for the dog's first bite on the rationale that the owner prior to that time could not have known of the likelihood that the dog might injure another human being, while commonly holding the owner strictly liable if his dog has previously shown a propensity to bite. Other states have adopted strict liability for dog bites regardless whether the dog had previously shown a propensity to bite. Other states have modified or mixed liability statues, rules of law that are generally analogous to a negligence cause of action, or statutes that limit liability, for example, to medical or economic damages, denying damages for "pain and suffering." The analysis of liability in any particular case can also be complicated by county or city ordinances, providing a basis for assertion of "negligence per se" liability, liability based upon the dog owners violation of the pertinent ordinance. Our dog bite attorneys caution that there is also variance in corollary aspects of liability, such as the availability and conditions upon which liability may be asserted against the landlord of the dog owner. Landlord liability and other forms of vicarious liability can often form the main focus of the effort to obtain recompense for the injured, as where the owner of a dog may not be insured or have the assets to pay the damages of the victim. The foregoing discussion is intended by our dog bite lawyers as a caution to those who have been victims of dog bites in other states than California that our discussion of the pertinent California law below may not track the law of the state in which you suffered your dog bite. The Henke Law Group has affiliate dog bite lawyers in every state who are pleased to provide information with regard to the laws applicable in your state. Again, simply fill out the "Dog Bite Lawyers" Contact Form, and we will be pleased to direct you to an attorney in your state.
Our California Dog Bite Lawyers Provide an Overview of the State Law Applicable to the Liability of Dog Owners. Our California Dog Bite Attorneys Will Consider Representing the Victims of Dog Bites Throughout Northern and Southern California, from San Diego to Sacramento, from Los Angeles to the San Francisco Bay Area, and from Orange County to San Jose and Santa Clara County.
If you were injured as the result of a dog bite in any county in California our dog bite lawyers would be pleased to speak with you to provide a specific "case evaluation" that would take into consideration not only the California state law, but city and county ordinances which might apply to your case, and will consider representing you in Southern or Northern California, from Los Angeles to the San Francisco Bay Area, from Orange County to San Jose and Santa Clara County, from San Diego to Sacramento. Simply fill out the California dog bite lawyers "Case Evaluation Request" and we will contact you promptly.
Because of the history of the "one bite rule" and common lay knowledge of the English rule, there is a common misperception that if the owner of the dog is not liable unless the dog has previously attacked a human being. That is NOT the law of California. California has rejected "one bite rule" in favor of what dog bite lawyers refer to as a "strict liability" statute.
The California dog bite law was codified by our California legislature in Civil Code Section 3342, the full text of which is set forth below, and then interpreted by California case law, the published law created by the California Courts of Appeals. This strict liability statue essentially places liability for dog bites on the owner of the dog regardless whether the dog has first bitten another and indeed regardless whether the owner had "scienter" or prior knowledge of his dog's dangerous propensities. The California strict liability law reflects the legislative sentiment that communities should be free of the dangers posed by dogs, impose liability on the dog's owner without the requirement to prove that the owner had prior knowledge of his dog's dangerous propensities, and to assure that those injured by dogs may recover for the injuries and damages they sustain. There are statutory exceptions to the rule of strict liability. The pertinent statute, set forth in California Civil Code 3342 reads as follows:
3342. (a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.
(b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the bringing of an action pursuant to subdivision (a) against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite or bites occurred while the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following:
(1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect's involvement in criminal activity.
(2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime.
(3) In the execution of a warrant.
(4) In the defense of a peace officer or another person.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply in any case where the victim of the bite or bites was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act or acts that prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work.
(d) Subdivision (b) shall apply only where a governmental agency using a dog in military or police work has adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or military work enumerated in subdivision (b).
Please note that from time to time statutes may be amended by the legislature and from day to day may be interpreted by the California courts of appeals in ways that may affect their application, so that our California dog bite lawyers urge you not to rely on the above statute, particularly in deciding whether you may or may note "have a case," rather than you contact our California dog bite lawyers for a case evaluation. Again, our California dog bite lawyers welcome you to "Contact Us" Our attorneys are pleased to provide case evaluations to victims of dog bites throughout Northern and Southern California, from San Diego to Sacramento, Orange County, San Jose, Santa Clara County, and the San Francisco Bay Area, Oakland and Berkeley.
Our California Dog Bite Lawyers Discuss the Grounds for Landlord Liability for Dog Bites Caused By Dogs Owned by Their Tenants.
While a dog owner in California can be held strictly liable for the damages resulting from a dog bite, including the medical expenses required to treat the dog bite, other economic losses such as loss of earnings, and pain and suffering, if the dog owner does not have applicable insurance, such as a homeowners policy, and if the owner lacks the wealth or assets sufficient to adequately compensate the victim, the California dog bite lawyers objective must be to locate alternative sources of liability. One such potential source of liability where, for example, a dog bites a person on the premises of an apartment building is landlord liability. Generally speaking a landlord can be held liable if the landlord has scienter, or knowledge of the dogs propensities, and in California scienter can be established either by proving actual knowledge or imputed knowledge, as where an agent or employee has knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities.
The owner of commercial property may also be held liable on the basis of "constructive knowledge," where he "knew or should have known" that the dog was dangerous. If the commercial property owner knew or was in possession of facts which should have led him to discover that the dog was dangerous he can be held liable.
All Serious Injury Dog Bite Cases and Cases Where the Victim Suffers Substantial Compensatory Damages Are Complex Cases That Require Serious Injury Dog Bite Attorneys Appropriately Qualified by Knowledge and Experience to Present the Medical Damages, Future Medical Expense, Past and Future Earnings Losses, and Pain and Suffering Damages.
Any time there are serious injuries, future medical expense, future earnings losses attributable to the dog bite or substantial pain and suffering damages, including emotional injury, there is ample opportunity for experienced serious injury attorneys to assure that their clients are fully compensated for the injuries and damages they have and in some case will suffer for the remainder of their lives. To learn how our serious injury attorneys prepare our cases and present them in settlement conferences and at trial, please consult our Catastrophic Injury Lawyers page at the top of our Practice Areas Menu. Serious injuries from dog bites can take many forms, from permanent injuries that prevent the victim from continuing in a profession through and including serious scars or post traumatic stress disorder or other significant psychological trauma that can haunt a victim for life. Medical expenses may include, just as examples, expensive plastic surgery or surgery to repair has torn muscles essential for the dog bite victim to continue employment in his chosen profession or trade. We commonly employ highly qualified experts, including medical doctors, psychiatrists, life care planners and forensic economists to present the future medical expense and future loss of earnings damage case. Our California dog bite lawyers are serious injury attorneys, highly experienced in the presentation of serious and catastrophic injury cases to assure that our clients receive full compensation for their injuries and damages.
Dog Bite Attorneys Serving Northern and Southern California in Los Angeles the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Orange County, Ventura, San Jose, Santa Clara County, Oakland, Berkeley and Sacramento.
If you have been injured as the result of a dog bite, you are welcome to consult our California dog bite lawyers. Our attorneys will consider representing victims of dog bites throughout the state of California, in Southern California from San Diego to Orange County, Los Angeles and Ventura and throughout Northern California from San Jose and Santa Clara County to the San Francisco Bay Area, Berkeley and Oakland up to Sacramento. You may contact our California dog bite lawyers by filling out the attorney "Case Evaluation Request" whereupon one of our dog bite lawyers will promptly call you.
*Landmark Jury Verdicts:
$3.8 million dollar gross jury verdict in brain injury case. The brain injury and consequent mild aphasia resulted from strokes caused by emboli from an atrial myxoma, a tumor in the upper left chamber of the heart. Atrial myxomas are the most rare human tumors known to medical science. The patient suffered a "fainting spell" which her physicians investigated using EEG's and CT scans and well as an EKG, but failed to perform an echocardiogram of the patient's heart, which would have disclosed the atrial myxoma. The internist defendant was asked politely by Mr. Henke at trial whether he "considered atrial myxoma in his differential diagnosis." The physician responded snidely, "Mr. Henke, you don't think of zebras when you hear hoof beats." Mr. Henke thought about the doctor's analogy for a moment and then then asked, "Mitral valve prolapse. It's a 'horse,' isn't that a fact, Doctor?" The physician responded, "What do you mean?" Mr. Henke clarified, "Well mytral valve prolapse occurs in about 6 percent of a randomly selected population of females Mrs. Z's age. It's a 'horse' isn't it?" The physician responded reluctantly, "Yes, It's a horse." Henke continued, "Mitral Stenosis, it's a 'horse,' isn't it Doc?" The internist responded "Okay, yes, it's a 'horse'". Again Henke then asked, "Idiopathic subaortic stenosis, it's a 'horse' isn't it?" The physician has to acknowledge "Yes." Henke concluded, "Well, doctor, upon hearing the 'hoof beats,' Mrs. Z's symptoms, if you had just thought 'horse,' atrial myxoma, mitral stenosis or idiopathic subaortic stenosis, and 'turned your head in the direction of the hoof beats,' done an echocardiogram, you would have seen the 'Zebra,' wouldn't you have doctor?" Again the physician had to acknowledge "Yes." The physician's snide remark followed by Mr. Henke's quick analysis of the fallacy of the analogy, and indeed its utility in demonstrating the physician's negligence, by his own analogy, was cited by the jurors in interviews following the trial as the pivotal point in the trial which resulted in their liability verdict for Mr. Henke's client. This case and this particular interchange between Mr. Henke and the defendant physician, formed the subject for a chapter in the book "Medical Malpractice, Solving the Crisis" by Frank Edwards, M.D., Holt & Co. The case and interrogation was also the subject of a legal journal article published in "Forum" the journal of the California Trial Lawyers Association. You may consider our qualifications, and indeed our national acclaim as seasoned, superior trial lawyers in complex litigation, discussed in the center and right hand column of this page.
$2.7 million dollar jury verdict in medical malpractice case in which attorney Henke represented 5 plaintiffs in a single consolidated 4 month trial against their physicians and hospital for conspiracy to defraud them with phony AIDS cures. Mr. Henke's experts in the case included Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV and head of France's National AIDS Laboratories; Michael Gotlieb, the discoverer of AIDS and co-founder of the American Foundation for AIDS Research, Don Francis, the head of the first CDC AIDS Task force and discoverer that AIDS was a sexually transmitted disease, John Curnutte, head of the largest AIDS vaccine project in the world, Roger Detels, Chairman of the Epidemiology Department at UCLA and chief investigator on the largest AIDS epidemiology study in the United States, and a dozen others of the most highly respected AIDS scientists and physicians in the world. This case was chronicled in legitimate newspaper articles from the front page of the New York Times to the front page of the Los Angeles Times, from the Washington Post to the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner, in California and national legal journals from "California Lawyer" to the "National Law Journal," in national and international television news segments, from Tom Brokaw's NBC Nightly News to CNN. Mr. Henke also testified before Congress with regard to these cases, at the invitation of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives.
*State Bar of California Disclaimer: The results obtained in the cases listed were dependent upon the facts of the cases, and the results will differ in other cases based on different facts
$3.8 million dollar gross jury verdict in brain injury case. The brain injury and consequent mild aphasia resulted from strokes caused by emboli from an atrial myxoma, a tumor in the upper left chamber of the heart. Atrial myxomas are the most rare human tumors known to medical science. The patient suffered a "fainting spell" which her physicians investigated using EEG's and CT scans and well as an EKG, but failed to perform an echocardiogram of the patient's heart, which would have disclosed the atrial myxoma. The internist defendant was asked politely by Mr. Henke at trial whether he "considered atrial myxoma in his differential diagnosis." The physician responded snidely, "Mr. Henke, you don't think of zebras when you hear hoof beats." Mr. Henke thought about the doctor's analogy for a moment and then then asked, "Mitral valve prolapse. It's a 'horse,' isn't that a fact, Doctor?" The physician responded, "What do you mean?" Mr. Henke clarified, "Well mytral valve prolapse occurs in about 6 percent of a randomly selected population of females Mrs. Z's age. It's a 'horse' isn't it?" The physician responded reluctantly, "Yes, It's a horse." Henke continued, "Mitral Stenosis, it's a 'horse,' isn't it Doc?" The internist responded "Okay, yes, it's a 'horse'". Again Henke then asked, "Idiopathic subaortic stenosis, it's a 'horse' isn't it?" The physician has to acknowledge "Yes." Henke concluded, "Well, doctor, upon hearing the 'hoof beats,' Mrs. Z's symptoms, if you had just thought 'horse,' atrial myxoma, mitral stenosis or idiopathic subaortic stenosis, and 'turned your head in the direction of the hoof beats,' done an echocardiogram, you would have seen the 'Zebra,' wouldn't you have doctor?" Again the physician had to acknowledge "Yes." The physician's snide remark followed by Mr. Henke's quick analysis of the fallacy of the analogy, and indeed its utility in demonstrating the physician's negligence, by his own analogy, was cited by the jurors in interviews following the trial as the pivotal point in the trial which resulted in their liability verdict for Mr. Henke's client. This case and this particular interchange between Mr. Henke and the defendant physician, formed the subject for a chapter in the book "Medical Malpractice, Solving the Crisis" by Frank Edwards, M.D., Holt & Co. The case and interrogation was also the subject of a legal journal article published in "Forum" the journal of the California Trial Lawyers Association. You may consider our qualifications, and indeed our national acclaim as seasoned, superior trial lawyers in complex litigation, discussed in the center and right hand column of this page.
$2.7 million dollar jury verdict in medical malpractice case in which attorney Henke represented 5 plaintiffs in a single consolidated 4 month trial against their physicians and hospital for conspiracy to defraud them with phony AIDS cures. Mr. Henke's experts in the case included Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV and head of France's National AIDS Laboratories; Michael Gotlieb, the discoverer of AIDS and co-founder of the American Foundation for AIDS Research, Don Francis, the head of the first CDC AIDS Task force and discoverer that AIDS was a sexually transmitted disease, John Curnutte, head of the largest AIDS vaccine project in the world, Roger Detels, Chairman of the Epidemiology Department at UCLA and chief investigator on the largest AIDS epidemiology study in the United States, and a dozen others of the most highly respected AIDS scientists and physicians in the world. This case was chronicled in legitimate newspaper articles from the front page of the New York Times to the front page of the Los Angeles Times, from the Washington Post to the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner, in California and national legal journals from "California Lawyer" to the "National Law Journal," in national and international television news segments, from Tom Brokaw's NBC Nightly News to CNN. Mr. Henke also testified before Congress with regard to these cases, at the invitation of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives.
*State Bar of California Disclaimer: The results obtained in the cases listed were dependent upon the facts of the cases, and the results will differ in other cases based on different facts
Driving Under the Influence of Cell Conversation Results in DUI Level Driving Impairment And a 4 fold Increased Likelihood that the Driver will Cause an Accident.
Read Henke Law Group Scientific Review Article. As Knowledgeable Cell Phone Accident Lawyers We Can Investigate to Establish That The Other Driver Was On His Cell Phone. The Evidence Can Make the Difference in a Contested Liability Case.
Where we Can Establish That the Other Driver Was Engaged in a Business Call We Can Bring his Employer in as a Defendant and Recover Against the Employer's Assets and Insurance Coverage.
California auto accident attorney Henke has reviewed all the scientific literature on the effect of cell phone use to impair driver attention. Driving under the influence of cell conversation renders the driver DUI level driving impaired and results in a four fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident. Contrary to popular belief, it is not "holding" the cell phone which resulting the impairment. It is the diversion of conscious attention to the internal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and take of the cell conversation away from the external-visual tasks essential for safe driving. Indeed, it matters not whether the motorist is driving under the influence of handheld or hands-free cell conversation, the impairment and the 4 fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident are precisely the same. Yes, California and a number of other states have enacted handheld laws; unfortunately that is just a function of politics. The scientists are not in dispute. All agree that driving under the influence of any cell phone results in the identical DUI level driving impairment.
It is important that the auto accident lawyer obtain the cell phone records of the other driver in every contested liability case, and especially in any serious injury case in which it appears that the other driver lacks sufficient insurance coverage to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and full measure of his damages. In the contested liability case,the evidence of the other party's cell phone use in the moments prior to the accident may snatch victory from the mouth of defeat. In the most common serious injury auto accident case in which the other driver lacks sufficient insurance to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and damages, it is essential that the cell phone records be obtained and appropriate depositions taken of the defendant and the other party to the call to determine whether the other driver was engaged in a business call in the moments leading up to the accident. If he was, then the knowledgeable cell phone auto accident lawyer can bring the employer into the litigation as a defendant "vicariously liable" for the injuries caused by its employee in the "course and scope of his employment." In this way the auto accident lawyer may assure that the plaintiff will be fully compensated up to the limits of the employers insurance policy, and indeed, the employer's assets would be available to execute against.
Read Henke Law Group Scientific Review Article. As Knowledgeable Cell Phone Accident Lawyers We Can Investigate to Establish That The Other Driver Was On His Cell Phone. The Evidence Can Make the Difference in a Contested Liability Case.
Where we Can Establish That the Other Driver Was Engaged in a Business Call We Can Bring his Employer in as a Defendant and Recover Against the Employer's Assets and Insurance Coverage.
California auto accident attorney Henke has reviewed all the scientific literature on the effect of cell phone use to impair driver attention. Driving under the influence of cell conversation renders the driver DUI level driving impaired and results in a four fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident. Contrary to popular belief, it is not "holding" the cell phone which resulting the impairment. It is the diversion of conscious attention to the internal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and take of the cell conversation away from the external-visual tasks essential for safe driving. Indeed, it matters not whether the motorist is driving under the influence of handheld or hands-free cell conversation, the impairment and the 4 fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident are precisely the same. Yes, California and a number of other states have enacted handheld laws; unfortunately that is just a function of politics. The scientists are not in dispute. All agree that driving under the influence of any cell phone results in the identical DUI level driving impairment.
It is important that the auto accident lawyer obtain the cell phone records of the other driver in every contested liability case, and especially in any serious injury case in which it appears that the other driver lacks sufficient insurance coverage to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and full measure of his damages. In the contested liability case,the evidence of the other party's cell phone use in the moments prior to the accident may snatch victory from the mouth of defeat. In the most common serious injury auto accident case in which the other driver lacks sufficient insurance to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and damages, it is essential that the cell phone records be obtained and appropriate depositions taken of the defendant and the other party to the call to determine whether the other driver was engaged in a business call in the moments leading up to the accident. If he was, then the knowledgeable cell phone auto accident lawyer can bring the employer into the litigation as a defendant "vicariously liable" for the injuries caused by its employee in the "course and scope of his employment." In this way the auto accident lawyer may assure that the plaintiff will be fully compensated up to the limits of the employers insurance policy, and indeed, the employer's assets would be available to execute against.
©2012 The Ray Henke Law Group