Sacramento Dog Bite Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm - (916) 233-7346

California law gives dog bite victims a direct claim against the dog's owner — no prior bite, no proof of viciousness, no proof that the owner was careless. The owner is strictly liable. If the dog bit you while you were in a public place or lawfully on private property, the legal analysis starts from that baseline. Attorney Michael Rehm handles dog bite and dog attack claims throughout Sacramento County on a contingency fee basis.

California leads the nation in dog bite claims paid by homeowners' insurers. According to the Insurance Information Institute and State Farm, U.S. insurers paid out $1.57 billion in dog-related injury claims in 2024 — 22,658 claims nationwide, with California again leading all states with 2,417 claims. Sacramento County Animal Care responds to thousands of animal-related calls annually, including bites and attacks on adults, children, and postal workers. The United States Postal Service ranks California first among all states for carrier dog attacks — 727 attacks in 2023, 701 in 2024, far ahead of every other state. The Sacramento Postal District ranked 16th worst city in the nation in 2024 with 21 reported attacks.

Strict Liability Under Civil Code § 3342

California Civil Code § 3342(a) sets out the rule:

"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."

The statute is at California Civil Code § 3342 on the Legislature's website. What it means in plain English: the owner cannot escape liability by saying the dog had never bitten anyone before. The owner cannot escape liability by saying they had no idea the dog was dangerous. The only things the injured person has to establish are: (1) the defendant owned the dog; (2) the dog bit the plaintiff; (3) the plaintiff was in a public place or lawfully on private property; and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages.

These are the elements the jury will be asked to evaluate under CACI 463 — the California Civil Jury Instruction for dog bite strict liability claims. CACI instructions are the standardized instructions read to juries in California civil trials. CACI 463 tracks the statute directly.

What Counts as a "Bite"

The statute uses the word "bitten," but courts have interpreted that term broadly. A dog does not need to break the skin for the statute to apply. In Johnson v. McMahan (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 173, a repairman was on a ladder when the owner's German Shepherd jumped at him and clamped its jaws on his trousers. The dog's jaws closed over a portion of the man's leg — skin not broken. He fell from the ladder and was injured. The court held: it does not matter that the skin was not broken. If the dog's jaws closed over part of the person's body — even through clothing — that is a bite within the meaning of the statute.

The liability extends beyond statutory bite claims as well. Where a dog causes injury through vicious or dangerous conduct even without any direct bite contact, the owner may be liable on common law grounds. In Frederickson v. Kepner (1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 905, two dogs jumped on a customer at a business and threw him over a bank — no bite, serious injuries. Liability attached. In Hicks v. Sullivan (1932) 122 Cal.App. 635, a muzzled wolfhound lunged at a woman crossing the street, terrorizing her until she fell and injured her hip. The court rejected the argument that the muzzle eliminated liability: "It is not the laceration of the flesh only by the white fangs of a dog that creates liability."

Leash law violations open a separate path to liability. In Delfino v. Sloan (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1429, a dog running loose in violation of a local leash ordinance attacked the wheel of a bicycle, causing the rider to crash and suffer serious injuries requiring multiple surgeries. The court held the owner liable on a theory of negligence per se — violation of the ordinance established negligence as a matter of law. Sacramento City Code requires dogs to be on leash or under control when off the owner's property. A dog running loose in violation of that ordinance, causing injury, establishes the owner's negligence without needing to prove anything further about the owner's state of mind or knowledge of the dog's temperament.

The Defenses

Provocation

The most commonly raised defense in a dog bite case is provocation. If the injured person provoked the dog — hit it, tormented it, or deliberately threatened it — that conduct can reduce or eliminate recovery under comparative fault principles. The defense requires actual provocation, not just that the dog perceived something as threatening. A child reaching toward a dog is not provocation. A mail carrier approaching a front door is not provocation. A meter reader walking across a yard in the course of their duties is not provocation.

Trespassers

The statute applies only to people in a public place or lawfully on private property. A trespasser — someone on the property without permission, without a legal duty that brings them there, and without any implied invitation — cannot recover under Civil Code § 3342. This is the trespasser carve-out. Delivery drivers, postal carriers, repair workers, and invited guests are all lawfully on the property. A person who jumps a fence to cut through a yard is not.

Occupational Assumption of Risk — The Veterinarian and Groomer Exception

Veterinarians, veterinary assistants, and kennel workers who accept custody of a dog for professional treatment or boarding take on the known risk that any dog, regardless of prior temperament, may bite while being handled in an unfamiliar setting. In Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, the California Supreme Court held that Civil Code § 3342 does not apply when the owner relinquishes care, custody, and control of the dog to a trained professional in exchange for compensation. The professional has assumed that risk as part of the occupation.

There is a significant exception to this rule. If the owner knows the dog has an unusually dangerous nature — beyond what is normal for any dog encountering a professional handler — and conceals or fails to disclose that information, the owner remains liable. The professional assumed the risk of ordinary dog behavior, not the risk of a dog the owner knew to be abnormally vicious. Nelson v. Hall (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 709. This exception matters in Sacramento cases where a groomer or boarding facility worker is badly injured by a dog the owner knew had a prior bite history and said nothing about.

Comparative Fault

California follows pure comparative fault under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804. A dog bite victim's damages are reduced in proportion to their own fault — but they are not barred entirely. If a jury finds the plaintiff ten percent at fault and the dog owner ninety percent at fault, the plaintiff recovers ninety percent of their damages. The dog owner's insurer will argue provocation and comparative fault in nearly every case.

Who Is Liable

The statute makes the owner strictly liable. But ownership is not always straightforward, and other parties may carry liability as well.

A person who harbors a dog — takes the dog in, feeds it, provides it shelter, exercises care and control over it — may be treated as an owner for purposes of the statute even without formal legal title. Liability turns on actual control and custody, not paperwork.

Landlords present a separate category. A landlord who knows a tenant's dog is dangerous and has the ability to require removal of the dog may be liable if the dog attacks a third party. The landlord's liability is not automatic — it requires knowledge and the legal or contractual ability to act. Landlords along Stockton Boulevard, Watt Avenue, and the large apartment complexes in North Sacramento and Rancho Cordova frequently encounter this issue when tenant dogs attack neighbors, visiting guests, or service personnel on the property.

Where Dog Bites Happen in Sacramento

Dog bites in Sacramento County occur across a wide range of settings. The pattern reflects the county's mix of dense residential neighborhoods, public parks and trails, and high-volume delivery routes.

Residential deliveries account for a significant share of Sacramento bites. Postal carriers and package delivery drivers working routes in Land Park, East Sacramento, Elk Grove, and Rancho Cordova regularly encounter dogs that escape yards, rush front doors, or are allowed to roam off-leash. A carrier is lawfully on private property under both California law and federal postal regulations. The owner cannot argue otherwise.

Off-leash encounters along the American River Parkway — a popular 32-mile trail system running through Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, Fair Oaks, and Folsom — produce dog attack claims every year. Dogs that are off-leash in posted leash-required sections are in violation of Sacramento County ordinance. Joggers, cyclists, and pedestrians on the trail have been knocked down, bitten, and chased by dogs whose owners ignored the leash requirement.

William Land Park, McKinley Park, and Curtis Park are frequent sites of dog attack incidents in the city. These are high-foot-traffic parks where leash rules apply in most areas. Designated off-leash areas create proximity between off-leash and on-leash zones, and dogs that escape the off-leash enclosure or are brought off-leash into prohibited areas cause injuries.

Apartment complexes along Watt Avenue, Florin Road, and in the North Highlands and Citrus Heights corridors generate landlord liability questions in addition to owner liability claims. Shared common areas — laundry rooms, parking structures, stairwells — are common sites of attacks in multi-unit housing. The landlord's knowledge of a dangerous tenant dog, documented in prior incident reports or prior lease violation notices, is central to establishing landlord liability in these cases.

What Damages Are Available

Dog bites produce injuries that range from minor puncture wounds to catastrophic disfigurement, nerve damage, and psychological trauma. The damages available in a California dog bite case include both economic and noneconomic losses.

Economic damages cover medical treatment — emergency care, wound closure, infection treatment, reconstructive surgery, and follow-up care. Dog bites carry a significant infection risk, including the risk of serious bacterial infections requiring hospitalization. Rabies post-exposure prophylaxis, while rarely needed in Sacramento County due to vaccination requirements, is expensive when required. Lost income during recovery is recoverable as an economic loss.

Noneconomic damages cover pain and suffering, permanent scarring or disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life. Scarring from dog bites — particularly facial scarring — can be severe and permanent. Reconstructive surgery addresses function but rarely eliminates visible scarring entirely. The noneconomic component of a serious dog bite claim is often the largest part of the recovery.

Psychological injury is a recognized and compensable component of dog bite damages, particularly in children. Post-traumatic stress disorder is common after a serious dog attack. Children who are bitten on the face may develop lasting phobias and behavioral changes that affect their daily functioning and development. These injuries require expert documentation — typically from a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist — and are presented to the jury as part of the full damages picture. Serious attacks can also result in traumatic brain injury or spinal cord injury where the victim falls or is knocked to the ground with significant force.

Filing a Dog Bite Claim in Sacramento County

California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 sets the statute of limitations for personal injury claims at two years from the date of injury. Dog bite claims are governed by this two-year period. Miss the deadline and the claim is barred, regardless of how serious the injuries are and regardless of how clearly the owner is at fault.

Minors have additional time. The statute of limitations for a minor does not begin to run until the minor turns 18. A child bitten at age 8 has until age 20 to file.

Dog bite cases in Sacramento County are filed at the Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County Courthouse, 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Most dog bite claims are resolved before trial through demand and negotiation with the dog owner's homeowners' or renters' insurance carrier. When the insurer refuses a fair offer, the case proceeds to litigation in Sacramento County Superior Court.

One practical issue that arises early in dog bite representation: identifying the dog's owner, confirming there is insurance coverage, and securing the claims record from Sacramento County Animal Care if the dog was quarantined or the bite was reported. These steps happen in the first weeks of representation and directly affect how the claim proceeds.

Attorney Michael Rehm handles dog bite cases throughout Sacramento County on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (916) 233-7346 for a free consultation — home visits, and hospital visits available.