1LAW Logo

Dog Bite Liability When the Person Was Trespassing

Start a free AI-assisted chat and connect with an experienced California attorney, with no obligation.

JV

Reviewed & verified by A. Jason Velez, Esq.*

Founding Attorney, 1LAW · Last reviewed July 5, 2021

Legal Inquiry

Consumer Legal Issue

My dog bit someone who entered our home without our permission (we were not home at the time). She admitted to us and to animal control that it was her fault. A year later she fi

Attorney Answer

California's dog-bite statute generally does not reach someone who was not lawfully on your property. That is a real defense — but it does not stop her from suing, and it does not automatically end the case.

The statute is Cal. Civ. Code § 3342(a): “The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness.”

Read the qualifier carefully, because it is the operative part for you: the bite must happen in a public place or while the person was lawfully in a private place. Someone who entered your home without permission was not lawfully in a private place, so the strict-liability route the statute creates is generally unavailable to her. That is the first thing a lawyer will look at, and it is the strongest point you have.

It is not the only theory she can use. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a) provides: “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.” A claim can be framed as ordinary negligence — how the dog was contained, what you knew about the dog, whether anything about the property invited the risk. Those become questions of fact rather than an automatic result, which is a very different case from the one the statute would have given her.

Her admission helps you, but understand what it is. It is evidence, not a legal bar, and she is free to explain it or take a different position later. California also applies pure comparative fault: in Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978), the California Supreme Court reaffirmed a system that assigns responsibility in direct proportion to each party's negligence, with recovery reduced only to the extent of a party's own lack of reasonable care. In practical terms, "she admitted it was her fault" usually translates into a large percentage assigned against her, not a dismissal.

What you can do

1. Notify your homeowner's or renter's insurer immediately and send them everything you have received. Many policies cover dog-bite claims and provide a defense lawyer.

2. Preserve the records that already exist: the animal control report, any texts, messages or emails in which she said it was her fault, photographs of the door, gate or window she came through, and the dog's vaccination and license records.

3. Do not contact her or her lawyer directly and do not give a statement. Route all of it to your insurer.

4. If you have been served with a lawsuit, call a local lawyer the same day. The summons carries a short response deadline, and a default judgment can be entered if nothing is filed.

5. Ask that lawyer specifically about § 3342(a)'s "lawfully in a private place" requirement as applied to how she got in — that is the issue the case turns on.

6. Keep the dog secured while any claim is pending.

Most lawyers offer a brief initial call at no cost, and a few minutes on your specific facts is worth more than any general guidance, including this page.

⏱ Time limits apply. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 gives two years for a personal injury claim in California, so the passage of a year does not mean the door has closed. Whether that period has run on your facts, and whether anything has been filed already, are questions for a local attorney — this page will not calculate a date, and you should not assume one has passed.

Cases Cited

Published decisions relevant to this issue, provided as legal background rather than advice about any particular case.

  • Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978) — California Supreme Court
    Pure comparative negligence — responsibility assigned in direct proportion to fault, recovery reduced rather than barred. Cited because the reader's central hope is that the claimant's admission ends the case, and only the case law supplies the reduced-not-eliminated rule; § 1714(a)'s text points the other way.

*Attorney review is supported by AI-assisted drafting and legal research algorithms. Use of this Chat does not create an attorney-client relationship.

By using this service you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Courts & Legal Aid in California

Frequently Asked Questions

Does California's dog-bite statute apply to someone who was trespassing?

Generally not. Cal. Civ. Code § 3342(a) makes an owner liable for a bite suffered by a person in a public place or while lawfully in a private place, including the owner's own property. Someone who entered private property without permission generally falls outside that language, which removes the strict-liability route. Whether a particular entry was lawful is a question of fact.

If the dog-bite statute does not apply, can the owner still be sued?

Yes. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a) makes everyone responsible for an injury caused by their want of ordinary care in the management of their property. A claim can be brought as ordinary negligence — how the dog was contained, what the owner knew about the dog, and how the property was maintained all become questions of fact rather than an automatic result.

Does a bitten person admitting fault end their claim in California?

No. An admission is evidence, not a bar. California applies pure comparative fault: Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978), reaffirmed that responsibility is assigned in direct proportion to each party's negligence, so a claimant's own fault reduces their recovery rather than eliminating it. A strong admission usually means a large percentage against the claimant, not a dismissal.

Privacy Policy Terms of Use Your Privacy Choices