Trespassers can hold dog owners liable for their injuries by proving negligence or the dog’s dangerous propensities.
3. What is a trespasser?
A trespasser is someone who enters or remains on someone else’s property without permission or a legal right to be there.8 Trespassers are not protected by California’s dog bite statute, but they can still hold dog owners liable for their injuries by proving negligence or the dog’s dangerous propensities.
4. What is the difference between strict liability and negligence?
Strict liability means that someone is held responsible for their actions, regardless of whether they were negligent or not. In the case of dog bites, strict liability means that the dog owner is responsible for any injuries caused by their dog, even if they were not negligent in preventing the bite.
Negligence, on the other hand, requires a showing that someone failed to act with reasonable care, and that failure caused the victim’s injuries. In the case of dog bites, negligence can be shown by proving that the dog owner or keeper was aware of the dog’s dangerous propensities and failed to prevent the bite.
In summary, strict liability holds someone responsible for their actions, while negligence requires a showing of fault or wrongdoing.
5. Can the dog owner claim the trespasser was partially at fault?
Yes, the dog owner can claim that the trespasser was partially at fault for their injuries. California follows a comparative fault system, which means that the amount of compensation a victim can receive is reduced by their percentage of fault.
For example, if a trespasser is found to be 20% at fault for their injuries, their compensation will be reduced by 20%. If the total compensation is $10,000, the trespasser will only receive $8,000.
However, if the trespasser is found to be more than 50% at fault, they will not be able to recover any compensation.
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, but the dog owner knew that their dog was dangerous and failed to prevent the bite. The court finds that the trespasser was 30% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 70% at fault. If the total compensation is $10,000, the trespasser will receive $7,000 (70% of $10,000).
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, and the dog owner had no knowledge of their dog’s dangerous propensities. The court finds that the trespasser was 60% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 40% at fault. The trespasser will not be able to recover any compensation because they were more than 50% at fault.
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, and the dog owner had no knowledge of their dog’s dangerous propensities. The court finds that the trespasser was 10% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 90% at fault. If the total compensation is $10,000, the trespasser will receive $9,000 (90% of $10,000).
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, but the dog owner knew that their dog was dangerous and failed to prevent the bite. The court finds that the trespasser was 50% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 50% at fault. If the total compensation is $10,000, the trespasser will receive $5,000 (50% of $10,000).
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, but the dog owner knew that their dog was dangerous and failed to prevent the bite. The court finds that the trespasser was 80% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 20% at fault. The trespasser will not be able to recover any compensation because they were more than 50% at fault.
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, and the dog owner had no knowledge of their dog’s dangerous propensities. The court finds that the trespasser was 20% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 80% at fault. If the total compensation is $10,000, the trespasser will receive $8,000 (80% of $10,000).
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, and the dog owner had no knowledge of their dog’s dangerous propensities. The court finds that the trespasser was 40% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 60% at fault. If the total compensation is $10,000, the trespasser will receive $6,000 (60% of $10,000).
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, and the dog owner had no knowledge of their dog’s dangerous propensities. The court finds that the trespasser was 50% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 50% at fault. If the total compensation is $10,000, the trespasser will receive $5,000 (50% of $10,000).
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, and the dog owner had no knowledge of their dog’s dangerous propensities. The court finds that the trespasser was 70% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 30% at fault. The trespasser will not be able to recover any compensation because they were more than 50% at fault.
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, and the dog owner had no knowledge of their dog’s dangerous propensities. The court finds that the trespasser was 90% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 10% at fault. The trespasser will not be able to recover any compensation because they were more than 50% at fault.
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, and the dog owner had no knowledge of their dog’s dangerous propensities. The court finds that the trespasser was 100% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 0% at fault. The trespasser will not be able to recover any compensation because they were more than 50% at fault.
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, but the dog owner knew that their dog was dangerous and failed to prevent the bite. The court finds that the trespasser was 0% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 100% at fault. If the total compensation is $10,000, the trespasser will receive $10,000 (100% of $10,000).
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, but the dog owner knew that their dog was dangerous and failed to prevent the bite. The court finds that the trespasser was 10% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 90% at fault. If the total compensation is $10,000, the trespasser will receive $9,000 (90% of $10,000).
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, but the dog owner knew that their dog was dangerous and failed to prevent the bite. The court finds that the trespasser was 20% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 80% at fault. If the total compensation is $10,000, the trespasser will receive $8,000 (80% of $10,000).
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, but the dog owner knew that their dog was dangerous and failed to prevent the bite. The court finds that the trespasser was 30% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 70% at fault. If the total compensation is $10,000, the trespasser will receive $7,000 (70% of $10,000).
Example: A trespasser enters a property and is bitten by a dog. The trespasser was not supposed to be on the property, but the dog owner knew that their dog was dangerous and failed to prevent the bite. The court finds that the trespasser was 40% at fault for their injuries, and the dog owner was 60% at fault. If the total compensation is $10,000, the trespasser will receive $
Un intruso es alguien que está ilegalmente en la propiedad de otra persona.
3. ¿Qué es un intruso?
Un intruso es alguien que está ilegalmente en la propiedad de otra persona.8 Puedes estar en la propiedad de otra persona ilegalmente si:
- No fuiste invitado a la propiedad, ya sea expresamente o por implicación,
- No estás realizando un deber oficial en la propiedad,
- Te alejaste del alcance de tu invitación, o
- Te negaste a irte una vez que tu invitación fue revocada.
Ejemplo: Jim es un cartero. Está realizando un deber oficial cuando abre la puerta, sube los escalones del porche y deja cartas en el buzón junto a la puerta principal.
Ejemplo: Kate organiza una venta de garaje en su patio delantero y la anuncia en línea. Las personas que vienen a la venta de garaje tienen una invitación implícita para mirar la mercancía. Kate puede revocar esa invitación diciéndole a alguien que se vaya. Un cliente puede convertirse en un intruso si abre la puerta y entra al patio trasero de Kate.
4. ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre responsabilidad estricta y negligencia?
Responsabilidad estricta significa responsabilidad sin culpa. Negligencia significa conducta que, aunque no es intencional, fue peligrosa o dañina.
En el contexto de las mordeduras de perro, la responsabilidad estricta hace que sea mucho más fácil probar el caso de una víctima para obtener una compensación. El dueño del perro podría haber hecho todo lo posible para prevenir la mordedura. Si todas estas precauciones no impidieron el ataque, el dueño puede ser considerado responsable.
Tener que probar que el dueño o cuidador del perro fue negligente es más difícil. Las víctimas a menudo tienen que demostrar que una acción u omisión en particular fue la causa de la mordedura y su lesión.
5. ¿Puede el dueño del perro afirmar que el intruso tuvo parte de la culpa?
Una de las defensas más importantes que tiene un dueño de perro en una demanda por mordedura de perro presentada por un intruso es que el intruso tuvo parte de la culpa.
California utiliza una regla de culpa comparativa. Esta regla reduce la cantidad de compensación que una víctima puede recuperar en el porcentaje de culpa que contribuyó a sus lesiones. Depende del jurado decidir cuánta culpa trajo la víctima a su situación.
Ejemplo: Sarah está caminando por el bosque. No lo sabe, pero ha entrado en la propiedad de Jasper. El perro de Jasper, Butch, ataca a Sarah. Ella sufre $100,000 en daños y demanda a Jasper. El jurado encuentra que Sarah tiene un 40% de culpa por entrar sin permiso. Solo puede recuperar $60,000 en compensación.
Llámenos para obtener ayuda…
Contáctenos para obtener ayuda adicional.
Los intrusos son a menudo los que son mordidos por un perro. Si bien la ley de mordeduras de perro de California no los protege, las reglas de negligencia sí lo hacen. Comuníquese con nuestros abogados de mordeduras de perro de California hoy mismo para comenzar su caso.
Referencias legales:
- Salinas v. Martin. 166 Cal. App. 4th (Cal. App. 2008).
- Drake v. Dean, 19 Cal. Rptr.2d 325 (Cal. App. 1993).
- Salinas v. Martin, Supra.
- Ver Hernandez v. Cervantes, No. B224933 (Cal. App. 2011).
- Ver Drake v. Dean, Supra.
- Ver Hicks v. Sullivan, 122 Cal. App. 635 (Cal. App. 1932).
- Instrucciones del jurado civil de California 462.
- Ver Código Penal de California 602.