DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, California ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of California
DATE: [Date]
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
[Adjuster Name / Dog Owner Name]
[Insurance Company Name / Address]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
RE: DOG BITE CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Our Client: [Client Full Name]
Date of Attack: [Date of Attack]
Location of Attack: [Address where attack occurred]
Dog Owner: [Dog Owner Name]
Dog Breed/Description: [Breed, Size, Color]
Claim Number: [If assigned]
Homeowner's Policy Number: [If known]
Dear [Recipient Name]:
This firm represents [Client Name] ("Claimant") for the serious and permanent injuries sustained as a result of a vicious dog attack that occurred on [Date of Attack]. The attack was perpetrated by a [Breed] dog owned by [Dog Owner Name]. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.
I. CALIFORNIA DOG BITE LAW - STRICT LIABILITY
A. Statute of Limitations
Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including dog bite cases, is two (2) years from the date of the injury. This claim arises from an attack that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
B. California's Strict Liability Dog Bite Statute
CALIFORNIA IS A STRICT LIABILITY STATE FOR DOG BITES.
California Civil Code Section 3342(a) provides:
"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."
Key Elements:
1. The defendant owned the dog;
2. The dog bit the plaintiff;
3. The plaintiff was in a public place OR lawfully on private property when bitten.
NO PROOF OF PRIOR VICIOUSNESS OR OWNER'S KNOWLEDGE IS REQUIRED. Liability is automatic once these elements are established.
C. California Case Law
California courts have consistently upheld strict liability for dog bites:
- Johnson v. McMahan, 68 Cal. App. 4th 173 (1998) - Strict liability applies regardless of owner's precautions
- Priebe v. Nelson, 39 Cal. 4th 1112 (2006) - Clarifying scope of "lawfully on premises"
- Fullerton v. Conan, 87 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2001) - Veterinary exception under Section 3342(b)
- Drake v. Dean, 15 Cal. App. 4th 915 (1993) - Strict liability does not require "bite" specifically; any injury from dog's teeth suffices
D. Additional Liability Under California Civil Code Section 3342.5
California Civil Code Section 3342.5 imposes additional duties on owners of dogs that have bitten a person:
"When a dog has bitten a human being on at least two separate occasions, any person... may bring an action against the owner of the dog to determine whether conditions of the treatment or confinement of the dog or other circumstances existing at the time of the bites have been changed so as to remove the danger to other persons presented by the animal."
This statute allows courts to impose conditions or order the destruction of repeat-offending dogs.
E. Pure Comparative Negligence
California follows pure comparative negligence under Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975). A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is not completely barred regardless of the degree of fault.
IMPORTANT: The only defenses to strict liability under Section 3342 are:
1. The victim was not lawfully on the property (trespass);
2. The victim assumed the risk (e.g., veterinarians, per Section 3342(b));
3. The victim provoked the dog.
Our client did nothing to provoke this attack and was lawfully present.
F. No Damage Caps
California does not impose caps on compensatory damages in dog bite cases.
II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE NOTICE
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this attack and the subject animal, including but not limited to:
- [ ] The animal itself (do not destroy, euthanize, or transfer without notice)
- [ ] All veterinary records for the animal
- [ ] Vaccination records, including rabies vaccination
- [ ] Animal licensing documents (required under local ordinances)
- [ ] Prior bite reports or complaints
- [ ] Any "dangerous," "vicious," or "potentially dangerous" dog designations under Cal. Food & Agr. Code Section 31601 et seq.
- [ ] Communications with [County] Animal Care and Control
- [ ] Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
- [ ] Training records for the animal
- [ ] Proof of confinement measures
California recognizes independent tort claims for intentional spoliation of evidence. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 18 Cal. 4th 1 (1998).
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Attack
On [Date of Attack], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe activity - e.g., "walking on the public sidewalk," "at the dog owner's residence as an invited guest," "delivering a package," etc.] in [City], [County] County, California.
At that time, [Dog Owner Name]'s [Breed] dog [describe how attack occurred].
The dog attacked our client viciously and without provocation. [Describe the attack in detail].
B. Location at Time of Attack - Establishing Strict Liability
[SELECT APPLICABLE OPTION]
Option 1 - Public Place:
Our client was in a public place at the time of the attack, specifically [describe location - sidewalk, park, street, etc.]. Under Civil Code Section 3342, the dog owner is strictly liable.
Option 2 - Lawfully on Private Property:
Our client was lawfully on private property at the time of the attack. [He/She] was [describe status - invited guest, delivery person, utility worker, mail carrier, etc.]. Under Civil Code Section 3342, the dog owner is strictly liable.
C. No Provocation
Our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack. [He/She] was:
- [ ] Peacefully and lawfully present at the location
- [ ] Not interacting with or approaching the dog
- [ ] Not engaging in any threatening or provoking behavior
- [ ] Not tormenting, teasing, or abusing the dog
The dog's attack was entirely unprovoked and without justification.
D. Prior Incidents (If Known)
[USE IF APPLICABLE - SUPPORTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES]
This was not the first incident involving this dog:
- [Prior bite/attack #1 - Date, victim, circumstances]
- [Prior bite/attack #2 - Date, victim, circumstances]
- [Prior complaints to Animal Control]
- [Dangerous/vicious dog designation]
Under Civil Code Section 3342.5, the owner had notice that this dog posed a danger to others.
E. Post-Attack Response
Following the attack:
- [ ] Emergency medical services were summoned
- [ ] [City] Police Department was notified
- [ ] [County] Animal Care and Control was contacted
- [ ] An incident report was prepared (Report No. [Number])
- [ ] The animal was quarantined per California law
- [ ] Photographs of injuries were taken
- [ ] Witness information was obtained
IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Strict Liability Under Civil Code Section 3342
Under California's strict liability statute, [Dog Owner Name] is automatically liable for our client's injuries:
- Ownership: [Dog Owner Name] owned the dog that attacked our client.
- Bite: The dog bit our client, causing serious injuries.
- Location: Our client was [in a public place / lawfully on private property] when the attack occurred.
NO PROOF OF PRIOR VICIOUSNESS OR OWNER'S KNOWLEDGE IS REQUIRED.
Liability is established as a matter of law. The only issue remaining is damages.
B. Defenses Do Not Apply
The limited defenses to strict liability under Section 3342 do not apply:
Trespass: Our client was lawfully present. [He/She] was [describe lawful status].
Assumption of Risk: Our client did not voluntarily assume the risk of being bitten. [He/She] had no knowledge of the dog's presence or dangerous propensities. The veterinarian exception under Section 3342(b) does not apply.
Provocation: Our client did nothing to provoke this attack.
C. Additional Theories
Common Law Negligence:
In addition to strict liability, the owner was negligent in:
- [ ] Failing to properly secure the animal
- [ ] Allowing the animal to roam unleashed
- [ ] Failing to maintain adequate fencing
- [ ] Failing to warn of the dog's presence
Negligence Per Se:
Violation of local animal control ordinances constitutes negligence per se:
- [ ] [City/County] Municipal Code Section [Number] - Leash Law
- [ ] [City/County] Municipal Code Section [Number] - Dangerous Dog Regulations
Landlord Liability (If Applicable):
Under California law, a landlord may be held liable if the landlord knew of the tenant's dog and its vicious propensities and had the authority to remove the animal. Uccello v. Laudenslayer, 44 Cal. App. 3d 504 (1975).
V. CALIFORNIA DANGEROUS DOG STATUTES
A. Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Dog Designations
Under California Food and Agricultural Code Section 31601 et seq., dogs may be designated as:
"Potentially Dangerous Dog" (Section 31602) - A dog that:
- Without provocation, on two separate occasions within 36 months, engaged in behavior requiring defensive action to prevent injury
- Without provocation, bit a person causing less than severe injury
- Without provocation, killed or injured a domestic animal off the owner's property
"Vicious Dog" (Section 31603) - A dog that:
- Without provocation, in an aggressive manner inflicted severe injury or killed a human being
- Has been designated potentially dangerous and continues such behavior
B. Owner Liability for Designated Dogs
If the dog was designated as potentially dangerous or vicious, the owner faced enhanced requirements and restrictions. Failure to comply supports punitive damages.
VI. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
A. Description of Injuries
The attack caused severe injuries to our client, including:
Bite Wounds:
- [ ] [Location] - [Description]
- [ ] [Location] - [Description]
Secondary Injuries:
- [ ] Soft tissue damage
- [ ] Nerve damage
- [ ] Tendon/ligament damage
- [ ] Bone fractures
- [ ] Infection
Scarring and Disfigurement:
- [ ] Permanent scarring to [body parts]
- [ ] Disfigurement requiring plastic surgery
Psychological Injuries:
- [ ] Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
- [ ] Cynophobia (fear of dogs)
- [ ] Anxiety and panic attacks
- [ ] Depression
B. Medical Treatment
[Detail emergency treatment, follow-up care, surgeries, mental health treatment]
C. Prognosis
[Detail permanent conditions, ongoing treatment needs, future care requirements]
VII. DAMAGES
A. Medical Expenses
| Provider | Service | Amount Billed |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
B. Future Medical Expenses
| Treatment | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| [Treatment] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL FUTURE MEDICAL | $[Total] |
C. Lost Wages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earnings | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
D. Pain and Suffering
California allows full recovery for:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Mental anguish and emotional distress
- Permanent scarring and disfigurement
- Loss of enjoyment of life
E. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earnings | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| Disfigurement | $[Amount] |
| Emotional Distress | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL DAMAGES | $[Grand Total] |
VIII. PUNITIVE DAMAGES
[USE IF EVIDENCE SUPPORTS]
If the dog owner knew of the dog's dangerous propensities and consciously disregarded the risk to others, punitive damages may be warranted under California Civil Code Section 3294. Evidence supporting punitive damages includes:
- Prior bite incidents
- Prior complaints to Animal Control
- Dangerous/vicious dog designation
- Owner's failure to comply with restrictions
- Continued exposure of public to known danger
IX. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
A. Demand Amount
Based upon the strict liability of the dog owner under California Civil Code Section 3342, the severity of injuries, and the substantial damages, we hereby demand:
$[DEMAND AMOUNT]
B. Time for Response
This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, through and including [Expiration Date].
C. Time-Limited Demand / Bad Faith Warning
[USE FOR POLICY LIMITS DEMANDS]
Our client's damages clearly [approach / exceed] available policy limits. Under California law, your company has a duty to accept reasonable settlement demands within policy limits. Crisci v. Security Ins. Co., 66 Cal. 2d 425 (1967). Failure to do so may expose your company to bad faith liability for the full amount of any excess judgment.
X. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED
- [ ] Medical records and bills
- [ ] Photographs of injuries
- [ ] Animal Control report
- [ ] Police report
- [ ] Witness statements
- [ ] Employment records
- [ ] Prior incident documentation
- [ ] HIPAA authorizations
XI. CONCLUSION
California imposes strict liability on dog owners. Under Civil Code Section 3342, [Dog Owner Name] is liable as a matter of law. No proof of prior viciousness or owner knowledge is required.
Our client was [in a public place / lawfully on private property] when attacked. The attack was entirely unprovoked. Liability is established. The only question is the amount of damages.
We are prepared to file suit in the Superior Court of California, County of [County], if necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
State Bar of California No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: [List]
cc: [Client Name]
[File]
CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES
- STRICT LIABILITY: California Civil Code Section 3342 imposes strict liability. Owner is liable regardless of prior knowledge.
- Pure Comparative Negligence: Li v. Yellow Cab Co. - recovery reduced but not barred by plaintiff's fault.
- No Damage Caps: California does not cap dog bite damages.
- 2-Year SOL: CCP Section 335.1.
- Dangerous Dog Statutes: Cal. Food & Agr. Code Section 31601 et seq. - check for prior designations.
- Bad Faith: California is plaintiff-friendly on insurer bad faith. Time-limited demands create exposure.
- Punitive Damages: Civil Code Section 3294 - available for oppression, fraud, or malice.
- Landlord Liability: Uccello v. Laudenslayer - landlord liable if knew of vicious propensities.
- Government Claims: If government entity involved, file claim within 6 months. Gov. Code Section 911.2.
- Venue: Superior Court in county where injury occurred or defendant resides. CCP Section 395.
This template must be reviewed and customized by a California-licensed attorney before use.