 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. McMahan12/1/1998
s cited.) The statute also recognizes some exceptions to its otherwise absolute rule. None is at issue here. Since the case reaches us on summary adjudication we must credit plaintiff's claim that the dog grabbed his leg through the trousers plaintiff was wearing. Defendants concede: " ecause our position is that Civil Code section 3342 requires a bite wound, it matters not whether [plaintiff] fell because Timber's teeth were around his ankle or merely caught in the hem of his jeans."
Assuming that plaintiff's leg was between Timber's jaws, separated only by the jeans plaintiff was wearing, was there a "bite" even though the skin was not broken or wound inflicted? The common sense answer is "yes." The word "bite" (as opposed, for example, to the phrase "bit off") does not require a puncture or tearing away. We turn to a particularly reliable source: an authoritative dictionary. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1993) page 222, we find the term defined at length. The first meaning is "to seize with the teeth so that they enter, grip, or wound." The next variant is "to remove a part of something with the teeth," and the next: "to seize, pinch, or sever with the jaws." While piercing the skin may be a common result of a dog bite, there is nothing in the language, plainly read or in its lexicographical meaning, that requires that the skin be broken or a wound inflicted.
The trial court relied on Delfino v. Sloan (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1437, in ruling that Civil Code section 3342 did not apply. But the case does not apply. In Delfino plaintiff was injured when a dog attacked the wheel of a bicycle plaintiff was riding. The court upheld liability based on violation of a leash ordinance, and made only passing reference to Civil Code section 3342, pointing out that the dog owners' argument that willfulness is required was undermined by that statute.
In plain terms, if the dog's jaws clamped upon a portion of plaintiff's trousers so that a part of plaintiff's leg was between the jaws, albeit separated from tooth by the cloth, a bite occurred. That is all the statute requires. Arguably, the statute applies even if the dog did no more than seize the jeans within its jaws and pull, causing plaintiff to fall and suffer injury . The trial court erred in ruling that a wound was needed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings on the basis of the Civil Code section 3342 claim. Appellant to have his costs on appeal.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.
EPSTEIN, Acting P.J.
We concur:
HASTINGS, J.
CURRY, J.
|