Injuries Caused by Dogs Off Leash at Dog Parks
When a person is injured by a dog who is off leash at a “dog park”, can that person sue the dog owner for her injuries?
In other words, do people who hike or walk in dog parks “assume the risk” of getting injured by a dog who is off leash, when being off-leash is permitted?
That was the question the California Court of Appeal answered this week in Wolf v. Weber.
Diane Wolf was hiking with her husband on a Northern California trail where dogs are permitted to be off leash. At some point, Alexander Weber’s mastiff Luigi wandered away from him and approached Ms. Wolf’s dog. Weber commanded Luigi to return, but he did not comply. The two dogs began to play with each other, and as they rolled over each other, Luigi collided with the back of Ms. Wolf’s legs. She suffered serious injuries, including a dislocated ankle and two broken bones in her leg. Weber admitted Luigi eluded his control and was still in the process of being trained.
As a general rule in California, dog owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs. In this case, Diane Wolf also argued that Mr. Weber was negligent in not controlling his dog in the dog park. Mr. Weber countered that people hiking in a dog park where dogs are permitted to be off leash “assume the risk” of being injured by an errant or excited dog. The trial court agreed with Mr. Weber and ruled in his favor.
But last week, the Court of Appeal reversed. The Court explained that under the famous case Knight v. Jewett 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992), the primary assumption of risk doctrine bars lawsuits for injuries that are inherent in that particular recreational activity. For example, if someone is injured playing flag football, the injuries are presumed to stem from activities that are inherent in the game of football, thereby barring a personal injury lawsuit.
The question for the Court in this case was whether a person injured by a dog off leash is comparable to a participant being injured in a recreational sports activity. The Court looked at the rules of the dog park and ruled that the assumption of the risk doctrine does not apply. That’s because dog owners are still required to maintain control of their dog even if the dog is off leash. In this case, the rules of the park state that the dog is considered not under control if the dog does not return to the owner when summoned. That is exactly what happened when Mr. Weber tried calling Luigi—the dog did not comply. Since the rules specifically required Weber to control Luigi, Diane Wolf could not have been expected to assume that she would be injured by an uncontrolled dog.
The ruling in Wolf v. Weber could have implications for many of Los Angeles area dog parks. Many parks in Los Angeles and surrounding areas allow dogs to be off leash. Nevertheless, each individual park’s rules should be reviewed—for a dog being off leash is not a license to allow dogs to roam around uncontrolled.
For questions about your Los Angeles area dog bite case, the Rabbi Lawyer is ready to assist, 24/6.
