A Rule To Be Noted By Dog Owners In California
Dogs that are cared for properly love their owners. Sometimes, those same pets try to protect their owners. Yet a pet does not always know who is a friend and who is an enemy. Consequently, an innocent person might suffer a dog bite.
Features of California’s strict liability rule
This rule concerns the responsibilities of dog owners. It declares that any owner should be deemed liable if that owner’s pet canine were to bite someone, whether in a public or a private setting. Specific provisions of this rule limit the avenues that any owner can use as a defense. Personal injury lawyer in Montclair is of the view that any victim of a dog’s bite has 2 years in which to file a claim.
If a dog’s biting action has taken place in response to a trespasser, then the owner’s liability can no longer be assumed. Similarly, if a pet canine were to bite someone that was in the process of committing a crime, then the person that owned the same pet could not be held liable for the resulting injuries.
Unacceptable or controversial defenses
If a previously mild-mannered dog were to bite someone, the owner’s lack of awareness of the dog’s aggressive tendencies could not be used as a defense against liability charges.
If someone were shown to have provoked or attacked a pet canine before it proceeded to bite them, then the pet’s owner would have the right to present a defense. Depending on the strength of that defensive argument, the liability provision might or might not get removed from consideration.
Punishment for those that violate the strict liability rule
owners of a breed that is known to have aggressive tendencies should invest in the appropriate training. Owners that fail to do so face an unpleasant punishment, in the event that their aggressive pet does dig its teeth into any person’s skin.
If that were to happen, then the government would have the right to order to pet’s removal from the owner’s home. If the government did take that action, the length of the dog’s future life would be in doubt, unless some trainer were to discover the homeless canine, and then decide to provide it with a home.
Once trained properly and placed under a suitable level of control, the previously aggressive animal should be prevented from biting any individual. Yet the previous owner would have been punished, because he or she could no longer enjoy the companionship of a 4-legged friend.
Understand, though, that what has been described above represents the happier ending for any canines that were to be seized by the government. There are also those that get forced to face a much less desirable and a much shorter future.