Cal. Civ. Code § 3342; CACI No. 463
Dog bite: strict liability, and the first bite is not free
A claim in California superior courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
Most states apply some version of the "one bite rule" — an owner is liable only if they knew or should have known the dog was dangerous, which in practice means the first bite is free.
California abolished that by statute in 1931. Civil Code § 3342 makes the owner liable for a bite regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of it.
But read the statute closely, because it covers bites and nothing else. A dog that knocks someone down, scratches them, or causes a bicycle to crash has not bitten anyone, and the statute does not apply. Those claims go back to ordinary negligence, where the owner's knowledge of the dog's propensities is exactly what the plaintiff has to prove.
What the claim is
A dog bit you, and you were lawfully where you were.
Where the right comes from
Civil Code § 3342, enacted in 1931, imposing liability on the owner of a dog for damages suffered by a person bitten while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.
What a plaintiff has to prove — CACI No. 463
- The defendant owned the dog.
- The dog bit the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff was in a public place or lawfully on private property.
- The plaintiff was harmed, and the bite was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
That is the whole claim. No negligence, no notice, no prior incident, no dangerous breed.
Element two is narrower than people expect. The statute says bitten. A dog that jumps on someone, knocks a cyclist over, scratches a child, or frightens a horse has not bitten them.
Element three does real work. A person on private property must be there lawfully — by invitation, express or implied, or performing a duty imposed by law. A trespasser has no § 3342 claim, though they may still have a negligence claim in narrow circumstances.
"Lawfully" expressly includes performing a duty imposed by law or by the United States Postal Service, which is why the statute has always covered letter carriers.
The negligence claim alongside it
Plead both, because the statute's limits are real and negligence has none of them.
Negligence covers what § 3342 does not: injuries other than bites; bites to trespassers, in some circumstances; and claims against a defendant who is not the owner — a keeper, a harbourer, a landlord, a groomer, a boarding facility.
And negligence still uses the knowledge standard. An owner or keeper who knew or should have known the dog had dangerous propensities is liable for injuries flowing from them. That is the common law "one bite" rule, and it survives in California for everything the statute does not reach.
Negligence per se may also apply where the injury resulted from violation of a leash law or local ordinance — the ordinance supplies the standard of care through the Evidence Code § 669 presumption. It is a presumption, not a separate claim.
How long you have to file
Two years, under CCP § 335.1, as a personal injury claim.
Tolling for minority applies under CCP § 352, which matters here more than in most torts — children are bitten far more often than adults, and a minor's claim does not expire while they are still a minor.
Six months to present a government claim where the dog was owned by a public entity — a police dog, most often, which raises its own set of issues.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing.
Animal control reporting is not a prerequisite, though the report is usually the best evidence of the incident, and quarantine and dangerous-dog proceedings run on a separate administrative track that does not affect the civil claim.
Character: no pre-suit prerequisite — unless a public entity owns the dog.
Who can be sued — and who cannot
The owner, and the statute means the owner. Ownership is the trigger.
Not a mere keeper, walker, or custodian under § 3342 — but they may be liable in negligence.
A landlord may be liable in negligence where they had actual knowledge of a dangerous dog on the premises and the power to remove it or require its removal. Actual knowledge is required; a landlord has no duty to inspect for dangerous animals.
A public entity owning a police dog, subject to the statutory provisions governing peace officer dogs — and § 3342 itself contains an exception for dogs assisting peace officers in specified law enforcement activity, where the agency has adopted a written policy on the use of the dog.
Common defenses
Trespassing. The plaintiff was not lawfully on the property, which defeats the statutory claim outright.
The veterinarian's rule and the assumption of risk by professionals. A veterinarian, groomer, or kennel worker who accepted custody of the dog assumes the risk of being bitten in the course of that work — a professional-assumption-of-risk principle that defeats claims by those who handle dogs for a living.
Provocation. California does not write provocation into the statute, but it operates through comparative fault, reducing recovery rather than barring it. A plaintiff who teased, struck, or tormented the dog will see their damages cut.
Comparative negligence generally, which reduces recovery proportionally.
The peace officer dog exception, where the statutory conditions are met.
No bite — recharacterising the incident as a knock-down or scratch, which moves the case to negligence and puts knowledge back in issue. This is the most common defense move and the reason to plead both theories.
The two-year period.
What the claim pays
Medical expenses, including reconstructive and plastic surgery, which are frequently the largest component in a facial injury case.
Future medical care, including anticipated revision surgeries for a growing child.
Lost earnings, and lost earning capacity.
Pain and suffering, and emotional distress — including the fear of dogs that commonly follows, which is compensable.
Scarring and disfigurement, evaluated separately and often the dominant element.
Property damage, where clothing or belongings were destroyed.
Punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 only on clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice — which strict liability does not supply. An owner who knowingly kept a dangerous dog and let it run loose may qualify; an ordinary owner will not.
No fee-shifting.
Jury trial: yes.
Homeowners and renters insurance is the practical source of recovery in most of these cases, and policies frequently contain breed exclusions or animal liability limits that determine what the claim is worth.
What people get wrong
"Every dog gets one free bite." Not in California. Section 3342 abolished that in 1931 — the owner is liable regardless of the dog's history or the owner's knowledge.
"The dog knocked me down, so the statute applies." It does not. Section 3342 covers bites. Every other injury is a negligence claim requiring proof of the owner's knowledge.
"It was a friendly dog with no history." Irrelevant to the statutory claim.
"I was in their yard, so I can still sue." Only if you were there lawfully. A trespasser has no statutory claim.
"I'm a dog groomer and got bitten at work." Professionals who accept custody of dogs generally assume the risk of being bitten.
"I can sue the person walking the dog." Not under § 3342, which reaches the owner. A walker or keeper may be liable in negligence.
"The landlord should have known." Landlord liability requires actual knowledge of the dangerous dog and the ability to remove it. There is no duty to inspect.
"My child was bitten five years ago, so it's too late." Probably not. The limitations period is tolled during minority.
Where it came from
The common law required scienter — the plaintiff had to prove the owner knew the animal was dangerous — and the rule made sense for livestock in an agricultural society, where an animal's propensities were known and manageable.
Applied to dogs in cities, it produced the "one bite" problem: an owner had no liability until the dog had already injured someone, which is precisely when the injury the law should have prevented had already happened.
California abolished it in 1931, among the earlier states to do so, and the statutory language is emphatic — liability attaches regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.
But the Legislature wrote the statute around a specific act, and the word it chose was bitten. That choice has held for ninety years and has not been broadened, which is why California has a two-track system: strict liability for bites, common law scienter for everything else a dog does.
The lawful-presence requirement reflects the same era's assumptions about property and about the role of dogs in protecting it, and it remains the statute's principal limit.
Common questions
Does California have a one bite rule?
No. Civil Code § 3342 makes a dog owner strictly liable for a bite regardless of the dog's history or the owner's knowledge of it. The one bite rule survives only for injuries the statute does not cover.
The dog knocked me over but did not bite me. Do I have a claim?
Not under § 3342, which covers bites only. You have a negligence claim, but you will have to prove the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous.
I was bitten in someone's yard. Does that matter?
Only if you were there unlawfully. The statute requires that you were in a public place or lawfully on private property — a trespasser has no statutory claim.
Can I sue the landlord?
Only in negligence, and only if the landlord had actual knowledge of the dangerous dog and the ability to remove it. Landlords have no duty to inspect for dangerous animals.
How long do I have to sue?
Two years. If the person bitten was a child, the period is tolled until they reach adulthood — which matters because children are bitten far more often than adults.
I work with dogs and was bitten on the job. Do I have a claim?
Usually not. Veterinarians, groomers, and kennel workers who accept custody of a dog generally assume the risk of being bitten in the course of that work.