 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Guerrero v. City of Los Angeles11/18/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiff and appellant Gary Guerrero (Guerrero) appeals an order dismissing his action against defendant and respondent City of Los Angeles (the City), following the granting of the City's motion to exclude evidence relating to the existence of any duty owed to Guerrero.
The essential issue presented is whether Guerrero has shown any statutory basis for the imposition of liability against City.
Because Guerrero has not shown any statute or enactment that imposed a mandatory duty upon the City to seize the dogs which bit him, the trial court properly precluded Guerrero from presenting evidence of any breach of duty by the City, and thereafter in granting the City's dismissal motion. The order of dismissal is affirmed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Facts.
On January 3, 1999, two pit bulls escaped from their owners' yard and bit two individuals. The incident was reported to the City's Department of Animal Regulation (Department) shortly after the incident. The Department did not impound the dogs. On February 21, 1999, the same dogs attacked and bit Veronica Arce and Guerrero.
On August 19, 1999, Guerrero filed the requisite governmental tort claim with the City. The claim stated in relevant part: "[Arce] was standing at the corner of Index and Dempsey [in Granada Hills] when she was viciously attac ed by two pit bulls biting [Arce] on the arms and legs. After the two pit bulls were fought off, the two pit bulls went and attacked [Guerrero] who was working under his nearby car and again the two pit bulls attacked him and bit him on both inner legs and arms." Guerrero claimed damages in the amount of $100,000.
The City denied the claim and this action followed.
2. Pleadings.
Guerrero commenced this action on June 30, 2000, and thereafter filed the operative first amended complaint, which purported to state causes of action against the City for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress and strict liability. The charging allegations provide in relevant part:
"17. On information and belief, defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES and DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL REGULATION, knew, prior to said dog bite incidents, that said DOGS were vicious and dangerous, having investigated an incident occurring January 3, 1999, wherein said DOGS attacked and viciously bit Kim Mattson and Michael Ware. Despite such actual knowledge, defendant, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, failed to take custody of and impound the said DOGS, thereby exposing the public, and plaintiffs in particular, to the risk of another vicious attack and dog bites.
"18. Defendants, . . . CITY OF LOS ANGELES and DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL REGULATION, and each of them, had a duty to control the DOGS and to safeguard persons such as plaintiffs against injury from the DOGS.
"19. Defendants, . . . CITY OF LOS ANGELES and DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL REGULATION, and each of them, negligently, and with full knowledge of each of the other defendants, allowed and permitted the DOGS to roam freely, thereby allowing persons such as plaintiffs to come into contact with, and be injured by the DOGS."
"23. At all times herein mentioned, defendant, CITY OF LOS ANGELES and DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL REGULATION, and its respective agents, representatives and employees, br
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|