Michaels v. Zoss. Los Angeles CountySuperior Case # SC081474

This case involved an attack on the plaintiff, who was a tenant residing on the property of the defendant dog owner. The dog in question was a rottweiler x pit bull mix with previous aggressive history towards humans on the property in question.

Issues in this case where assumption of risk, provocation, and the amount of damage the plaintiff sustained as a result of the dog attack. The defense questioned the extent of the damages.

The theories of liability the plaintiff argued for was: (1) Strict liability under California's dog bite statue, and (2) negligence because of the manner in which the defendant maintained a dangerous dog.

The main defense argument to counter strict liability in this case was assumption of risk. The provocation argument was also employed. Specifically, the defense argued that the plaintiff was told in no uncertain terms not to go into the dog's territory. The dog was maintained enclosed in the backyard area of the property. The plaintiff denied that he had ever been given any warning or that he had ever seen this dog act aggressively prior to the incident in question. The plaintiff during his tenancy at the property claimed to have been a fill-in caretaker for the dog and therefore was on good relationship with the dog.

The jury found the defendant negligent. The jury did not find the defendant strictly liable under California civil code 3342 because of the risk the plaintiff assumed, however. Accordingly, the jury ruled that the plaintiff was 65% at fault, thereby reducing his award substantially.

Monetary award for the plaintiff was less then the settlement offer made by the defense prior to the start of trial, effectively resulting in no award for the plaintiff.