GET A FREE CONSULTATION
310-750-4149
By David Gammill · Last reviewed: August 21, 2026
Civil Code § 3342 is California’s dog bite statute. It makes a dog’s owner strictly liable when the dog bites someone in a public place, or someone lawfully in a private place. Strict liability means the victim does not have to prove the owner did anything careless, and does not have to prove the dog ever bit anyone before. If the dog bit you and you were somewhere you had a right to be, the owner is responsible for the harm. California rejected the “one free bite” idea decades ago.
Not sure how this law applies to your situation? Call Gammill Law at 310-750-4149 for a free consultation, or send us a message through our contact page.
The heart of the statute is subdivision (a), quoted here in full:
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. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.
Source: Cal. Civ. Code § 3342, California Legislative Information (verified August 21, 2026). Subdivisions (b) through (d) create a limited carve-out for government agencies using police or military dogs, explained below.
In plain English: the owner answers for the bite. “Regardless of the former viciousness of the dog” means the dog’s history does not matter, and neither does what the owner knew about it. The two questions that matter are simple. Did the dog bite you? Were you in a public place, or lawfully in a private place, when it happened? Being “lawfully” on private property includes guests who were invited, expressly or by implication, and people doing a job the law sends onto the property, like mail carriers and meter readers.
The statute applies even when the skin is not broken. In Johnson v. McMahan (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 173, a dog grabbed a repairman’s leg through his pants and pulled him off a ladder. The teeth never touched skin, but the court held a bite had occurred: if the dog’s jaws close on part of a person, “albeit separated from tooth by the cloth,” the statute is satisfied. The injuries in that case came from the fall, not the teeth, and the claim still went forward. So a bite that causes you to fall, or that crushes without puncturing, is still a § 3342 bite.
One boundary is real, though: § 3342 covers bites. If a dog knocks you down, trips you, or scratches you without biting, strict liability under this statute does not apply. Those cases proceed instead on ordinary negligence, which asks whether the owner failed to use reasonable care in controlling the animal. They are still real cases; they just take more proof.
Trespassers. The statute protects people in public places and people lawfully on private property. Someone who was trespassing when bitten is outside the statute’s protection and must rely on other legal theories, which are much harder.
Police and military dogs. Subdivisions (b) through (d) say a government agency is not strictly liable when its police or military dog bites while defending itself from provocation, or while helping apprehend a suspect, investigate a crime, execute a warrant, or defend an officer or another person. Two limits matter. The carve-out only works if the agency has adopted a written policy on using its dogs, and it does not apply at all when the person bitten was an innocent bystander, someone who was not a party to, a participant in, or suspected of the activity that brought the dog out. A bystander bitten by a police dog can still sue the agency, but claims against government entities run on a separate, much shorter clock: a written claim is generally due within six months under the Government Claims Act deadline.
People paid to handle dogs. California courts apply a doctrine called primary assumption of risk, sometimes named the veterinarian’s rule, to people whose occupation is caring for dogs. In Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, the California Supreme Court held that a commercial kennel worker bitten by a boarded dog could not use § 3342 against the owner, because the risk of bites comes with that work. The rule has an important exception of its own: if the owner knew the dog was dangerous and hid that from the handler, a claim can still proceed, because no one assumes a risk they were never told about.
Provocation and comparative fault. Strict liability is not absolute liability. Courts have recognized that defenses like assumption of risk and the victim’s own share of fault can still be raised (Johnson, above). If an adult provoked or tormented the dog, that conduct can reduce or defeat recovery under California’s comparative fault system. Insurers raise this defense often, including against child victims, where it carries far less weight; very young children are generally not capable of legal fault.
Section 3342’s strict liability reaches only the dog’s owner. But other people can share responsibility on ordinary negligence principles when the facts support it: a person who was keeping or controlling the dog, or a landlord who actually knew a tenant’s dog was dangerous and had the power to remove it but did nothing. These claims require proof of knowledge and carelessness, which is exactly the kind of evidence an early investigation preserves: prior complaints, animal control records, and neighbor accounts.
California also imposes a forward-looking duty on owners. Under Civil Code § 3342.5, the owner of a dog that has bitten someone must take reasonable steps to remove the danger of future bites, and after two separate bites, a court action can be brought to change how the dog is kept, or in serious cases to remove it. A documented earlier bite is therefore powerful evidence, which is one more reason every bite should be reported.
Section 3342 makes the owner liable for “the damages suffered,” which in a California injury case means the full measure: emergency treatment and future medical care, including the scar revision and reconstructive work bites so often require; therapy for trauma, which is common and compensable, especially in children; lost wages; and non-economic damages for pain, disfigurement, and the lasting fear many victims carry. Dog bite liability is commonly covered by the owner’s homeowners or renters insurance, so pursuing the claim usually does not mean taking a neighbor’s savings; it means dealing with their insurer. No outcome is ever guaranteed, and the value of any case depends on its own facts and evidence.
Most South Bay dog bite claims follow the same practical path. The bite gets medical attention first, both for infection risk and because the medical record anchors the claim. The bite gets reported to animal control, which creates the official record that proves the incident and surfaces any prior complaints about the same dog. Then the legal claim proceeds against the owner’s insurance. Our Torrance dog bite attorney page walks through each of those steps, what the insurer will ask, and what not to sign.
Most California dog bite lawsuits must be filed within two years of the bite under CCP § 335.1, California’s two-year statute of limitations. Different rules extend the clock for minors, and a much shorter six-month claim deadline applies when the responsible party is a public entity, as in police dog cases. The evidence clock is shorter than any of them: witnesses scatter, the dog’s history goes undocumented, and photos of untreated wounds can never be retaken.
Yes. The text quoted above reflects California law as of the review date at the top of this page, verified against the official California Legislative Information site and independent mirrors. Section 3342’s strict liability rule has been stable for decades; the section was last amended in 1988, and the amendment concerned the police dog provisions, not the core rule.
Strict liability makes dog bite claims more provable than most injury cases, but only if the incident gets documented while the evidence exists. Start with our Torrance dog bite attorney page, get your free case evaluation, or call 310-750-4149. There are no upfront legal fees; a fee is collected only if we win, under a written contingency fee agreement that complies with California law.
Disclaimer: This article is educational and informational in nature. It does not constitute legal advice for any specific situation, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and no result is guaranteed; consult a licensed California attorney about your own circumstances.
