California dog bite cases are governed primarily by Civil Code § 3342, interpreted through CACI No. 463 (Dog Bite Statute — Essential Factual Elements).

To win, a plaintiff must prove:

1. The defendant owned the dog.
   
2. The dog bit the plaintiff (broken skin is not required).
   
3. The plaintiff was in a public place or lawfully on private property when bitten.
   
4. The dog bite was a substantial factor in causing harm.
   

These are the elements directly reflected in CACI No. 463, which instructs the jury that dog owners are liable “no matter how carefully they guard or restrain their dogs.” It is a strict liability standard—meaning the owner’s negligence, knowledge, or intent does not matter.

Under California’s dog-bite statute:

• The owner is liable even if the dog never previously bit anyone
  
• The owner is liable even if they used reasonable care
  
• The owner is liable regardless of breed, size, or temperament
  

This statutory scheme creates an exception to the former common-law rule, which required proving the owner knew or should have known the animal was dangerous (the “one-bite rule”). Civil Code § 3342 eliminates that requirement.

Cases like Hicks v. Sullivan and Johnson v. McMahan reinforce that strict liability applies even when the injury is minor—and the skin does not even need to break for the statute to trigger.

Dog attacks occur in many settings, including:

• Public streets and sidewalks
  
• Neighboring properties
  
• Inside homes or apartment complexes
  
• Parks, trails, and beaches
  
• Businesses and stores that allow pets
  
• Delivery sites, mail drops, and front porches
  
• Dog-friendly restaurants or patios
  

California law covers victims in any public place, and virtually anyone lawfully present on private property.

Lawful presence includes:

• Guests
  
• Tenants
  
• Delivery drivers
  
• Postal carriers
  
• Utility workers
  
• Maintenance personnel
  

Trespassers are not protected.

Strict liability does not apply when:

• The victim was trespassing
  
• The defendant is not the dog’s owner
  
• The dog was working in law enforcement or military use in certain narrow circumstances
  
• The injury was not caused by a “bite” (in that case, negligence/common-law liability applies)
  
• The victim assumed the risk due to their occupation (e.g., kennel workers, groomers, veterinarians)
  

Cases such as Priebe v. Nelson and Nelson v. Hall hold that animal workers assume certain occupational risks.

If the dog did not bite—but knocked someone down, scratched them, or caused injury in another manner—strict liability may not apply.
In that situation, a plaintiff may still win under CACI No. 462, which requires proving:

1. The dog had dangerous tendencies abnormal to its class, and
   
2. The owner knew or should have known about those tendencies.
   

This applies to:

• Dogs with a history of aggressive behavior
  
• Repeated lunging
  
• Snapping
  
• Chasing
  
• Knock-down incidents
  

Many dog-related injuries still fall under this rule when a bite is not involved.

Although strict liability is powerful, dog owners may raise:

• Assumption of risk (dog professionals)
  
• Provocation (rarely successful)
  
• Comparative fault
  
• Trespass
  
• Self-defense
  

Even if some fault is attributed to the victim, California’s comparative negligence still allows substantial recovery.

Victims may recover:

• Medical bills
  
• Emergency care
  
• Plastic surgery
  
• Psychological counseling
  
• Lost wages
  
• Future lost earning capacity
  
• Pain and suffering
  
• Scarring and disfigurement
  
• Infection and rabies-related treatment
  
• Nerve damage care
  
• Wrongful death damages
  

Dog bites often result in permanent scarring—especially for children—and may require long-term treatment.

• 2 years for injuries
  
• 6 months (with government claim filing) if a police or government dog is involved
  
• 2 years for wrongful death