Filing a civil personal injury claim for a dog bite in California does not, by itself, cause the dog to be euthanized. A civil claim asks the owner, and usually the owner’s insurer, to pay for your medical care and other losses. Whether a dog is declared potentially dangerous or vicious, restricted, or in the most serious cases destroyed is decided in an entirely separate proceeding under the Food and Agricultural Code, brought by animal control or law enforcement, or under a local ordinance. Many bite victims do not want the animal destroyed, and seeking compensation for a real injury does not require that result. At the same time, it is worth understanding the framework accurately, because the two processes can run in parallel and the outcome of the second one is not in your hands. Attorney Damoun Yazdi at The Accident Network Law Group handles dog bite claims with attention to clients’ concerns about the animal.

We are here to help, schedule a free consultation now

Key Takeaways

  • Filing a civil dog bite claim for compensation does not by itself cause a dog to be euthanized, and a civil court has no authority over the animal’s fate
  • Civil Code Section 3342 makes a dog owner strictly liable for damages to a person bitten while in a public place or lawfully in a private place
  • Food and Agricultural Code Section 31602 defines a potentially dangerous dog and Section 31603 defines a vicious dog. One unprovoked bite causing an injury less serious than a severe injury can support a potentially dangerous designation, so the threshold is lower than most people assume
  • Destruction of a dog is authorized only under Section 31645, after a vicious dog determination through the hearing process beginning at Section 31621, and only on a finding that releasing the dog would create a significant threat to public health, safety, and welfare
  • California’s rabies control rules require animal bites to be reported to the local health officer and generally require the biting animal to be isolated for a period after the bite. That isolation is a public health measure, not a step toward euthanasia
  • The proceeding about the dog is initiated by a government agency, never by the bite victim, and the victim has no control over its outcome

Civil Claims and Dangerous Dog Proceedings Are Two Different Things

When you bring a personal injury claim against a dog’s owner, what you are seeking is money: medical bills, lost income, scarring and reconstructive treatment, and compensation for the pain and the lasting effects of the attack. Civil Code Section 3342 makes this straightforward in most cases, because it imposes strict liability on the owner of a dog that bites a person in a public place or where the person was lawfully present. You do not have to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous. A civil court hearing that claim awards damages. It does not issue orders about the animal.

Running on a separate track, the local animal control agency may investigate the bite and, if it concludes the circumstances warrant it, pursue a determination under the dangerous dog provisions of the Food and Agricultural Code beginning at Section 31601, or under a local ordinance. That is a different proceeding, with a different decision maker, a different standard, and a different set of possible outcomes.

California’s Dangerous Dog Law, Stated Precisely

Food and Agricultural Code Section 31602 defines a potentially dangerous dog in three ways. First, a dog that, unprovoked and on two separate occasions within the previous 36 months, engaged in behavior off its owner’s property that required defensive action by a person to prevent bodily injury. Second, a dog that, unprovoked, bit a person and caused an injury less serious than a severe injury. Third, a dog that, unprovoked and on two separate occasions within the previous 36 months, killed, seriously bit, or injured a domestic animal off its owner’s property.

That second category deserves emphasis, because it is commonly misdescribed online as requiring two bites. It does not. A single unprovoked bite causing a less-than-severe injury can support a potentially dangerous designation.

Section 31603 defines a vicious dog as one that, unprovoked and in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being, or a dog previously determined to be potentially dangerous whose owner continued the prohibited behavior or kept the dog in violation of the applicable requirements after receiving notice of the designation.

Section 31604 supplies the definition both of those provisions depend on. A severe injury means any physical injury to a human being that results in muscle tears or disfiguring lacerations, or that requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic surgery.

The consequences of the two designations are very different. Under Section 31641, a potentially dangerous dog must be properly licensed and vaccinated, the designation goes into the dog’s registration records, and the city or county may charge an additional fee to cover the cost of tracking it. Destruction is not among the consequences of that designation. Euthanasia enters the picture only at the vicious dog level.

What Actually Has to Happen Before a Dog Can Be Destroyed

The authority is Section 31645. A vicious dog may be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after the hearing process in the article beginning at Section 31621, that releasing the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. If the dog is not destroyed, the court is required to impose conditions on the ownership of the dog that protect public health, safety, and welfare, and any enclosure required must meet the standards in the statute.

Who can start that process is defined narrowly. Under Section 31621, the petition may be filed by the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, that officer’s immediate supervisor, or the head of the local law enforcement agency or a designee. It is filed in the superior court of the county where the dog is owned or kept, although a city or county is permitted to establish its own administrative hearing procedure instead. A bite victim is not on that list and cannot file such a petition.

Section 31683 is the reason local rules matter as much as state law. A city or county may adopt and enforce its own program for controlling potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, incorporating all, part, or none of the state chapter, and may make its program more restrictive than the state framework. The one statewide constraint is that no such program may be breed specific, apart from the narrow exception the statute preserves. In practical terms, this means the actual procedure in Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Orange County, or Kern County may look different from the state default, and the local ordinance is what governs.

What Drives the Outcome, and What Does Not

The animal control agency’s own investigation is what determines whether any proceeding about the dog goes forward. The severity of the injury, whether the bite was provoked, whether the dog was off its owner’s property, and whether there is a documented history of prior incidents are the factors the statutes make relevant. Your decision to pursue compensation from the owner’s insurer is not among them, and nothing in the Food and Agricultural Code makes the filing of a civil claim a trigger.

The statutory structure is also why the fear that any claim leads to euthanasia is misplaced. Getting to Section 31645 requires a vicious dog determination under Section 31603, which requires either a severe injury as defined in Section 31604 or a prior potentially dangerous designation that the owner disregarded, and then a further finding that release would create a significant threat to the public. A first incident that produced a less serious injury sits in the potentially dangerous category, where Section 31641 contemplates licensing, vaccination, registration, and local conditions rather than destruction. We are not going to tell you the risk to a particular animal is zero, because that depends on the injury, the history, and the local ordinance, and it is decided by people other than you.

Reporting the Bite

Reporting is more constrained than many articles suggest, and it is worth being clear about. California’s rabies control regulations require animal bites to be reported to the local health officer, and the California Department of Public Health reads that requirement to cover bites from mammals generally. In practice, a report is frequently generated by the clinic, urgent care, or emergency department that treats you, so the record often exists whether or not you initiate it yourself.

The regulations also provide for the biting animal to be isolated and observed, generally for 10 days from the date of the bite, with earlier release possible where a licensed veterinarian examines the animal on or after the fifth day and certifies that there are no clinical signs of rabies. This is a rabies precaution for the protection of the bite victim. It is not a step in the euthanasia process, and it is not the result of your claim.

Because a report may already be in the system, the more useful question is usually not whether to report but what the report shows. The animal control file, the health officer’s record, and any prior complaints about the same dog are also evidence in the civil claim, and Attorney Yazdi requests them as a matter of course.

California Laws Relevant to Dog Bite Civil Claims

YN

Yasser Nourzaee

★★★★★

Grade

Contact The Accident Network Law Group About a Dog Bite Injury

It is common for a bite victim to hesitate because the dog belongs to a neighbor, a relative, or a friend, and nobody wants the animal destroyed over a moment that may never repeat. Attorney Damoun Yazdi will walk you through what a civil claim actually does, which is ask the owner’s homeowners or renters insurer to pay for the medical care, the scar revision, and the losses you did not choose, and what it does not do, which is decide anything about the dog. If a bite report has already been filed by the clinic that treated you, he will explain what that record means and what it does not. The consultation is free and our firm works on contingency under our No Recovery, No Fee policy.

We help bite victims, and parents of children hurt by a dog, from our offices in Costa Mesa, Riverside, Rancho Cucamonga, Apple Valley, Victorville, and Bakersfield, and throughout Southern California. Se habla espanol.

Legal Disclaimer

This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any case depends on its specific facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact The Accident Network Law Group for advice about your individual situation.