Dog Bite Law - Home Page

Dog Bite Law
Legal Rights of Rescuers Who Incur Dog Bites

When a person is injured while defending another person or pet from a dog attack, the owner of the attacking dog is liable (responsible) for all of the resulting injuries, damages and losses. The defenses of assumption of risk, comparative negligence and contributory negligence are generally not available. 

Self defense when a dog attacks a person

It is lawful for a person to repel an attack by a dog:
    "[O]ne is 'privileged to destroy an animal for the purpose of defending himself or third persons against harm threatened by the animal, (a) if its actions led him to know or reasonably believe that the animal would inflict such harm and (b) the destruction was reasonable in view of the gravity of the harm threatened and (c) the person reasonably believed the harm could be prevented only by immediate destruction of the animal." (Devincenzi v. Faulkner (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 250, 254-5.)

The law of self-defense permits aggression only for the purpose of meeting aggression. It does not permit revenge killing. "It is not the dog's predatory habits, nor his past transgressions, nor his reputation, however bad, but the doctrine of self-defense, whether of person or property, that gives the right to kill." (State v. Smith (1911) 156 N.C. 628, 72 S.E. 321.) There is no legal justification that will protect a person for killing or injuring a dog that bit him or her at a prior time, if the dog presented no threat at the time of the killing or injuring. 

Return to top of page

Defending dogs and other animals 

It is dangerous to defend dogs and other animals from attack. If you intervene in a dog fight and receive a bite, for example, you will suffer pain, possible disability and possible disfigurement. The owner of the other dog may assert that your own dog bit you. For more information about injuries in such an attack, see below, Legal rights of a person who is injured while defending a person or pet from attack.

The legal consequences vary, depending on the state and the circumstances. For that reason, you are reminded again that you must seek the advice of an attorney if you have defended your dog against a dog attack. Only very general information can be provided here.

In California, people have a statutory right to kill dogs that attack certain listed animals, and a common-law right to defend their other domestic animals from attack under most circumstances. Other states have laws that are similar in nature; however, the list of animals might be different, so the laws have to be read carefully.

California provides a privilege to kill any animal that is worrying, wounding or killing certain other animals. California Civil Code section 3341, subdivision 2, states that any person can kill any animal (including a dog) that is off the premises of the owner and is worrying, wounding or killing certain listed animals:

    3341, subd. 2. Any person on finding any dog or dogs, or other animal, not on the premises of the owner or possessor of such dog or dogs, or other animal, worrying, wounding, or killing any bovine animals, swine, horses, mules, burros, sheep, angora or cashmere goats, may, at the time of finding such dog or dogs, or other animal, kill the same, and the owner or owners thereof shall sustain no action for damages against any person so killing such dog or dogs, or other animal.
If a dog comes into your backyard and is killing your pet rabbit, you cannot kill the dog and claim a privilege under this statute, because rabbits are not listed. However, your fault (if any) for killing the dog would be compared with the fault of the dog owner. While you would not be entitled to claim a privilege to kill, a jury might decide that you nevertheless acted reasonably, or that the dog owner was principally at fault. This is because there is a common law privilege for defending domestic animals from attack:
    "The section [Civil Code sec. 3341] was not intended to, nor does it, abridge the common law right of a person to defend his domestic animals against the attacks of dogs, or to kill such dogs when the circumstances warrant the belief that his property is in peril. At the common law the justification for the killing was complete when it appeared that the dog was engaged in worrying and terrifying domestic animals in their own lawful enclosure, and where the necessity of the killing in order to protect the property was apparent." (Sabin v. Smith (1915) 26 Cal.App. 676, 678-9.)
The right to kill a dog or other animal that is attacking a domestic animal is not affected by consideration of which animal is more valuable. "The right to kill a dog found trespassing and endangering property is not affected by the relative value of the dog and the property being injured."  (Sabin v. Smith (1915)  26 Cal.App. 676, 680.)

In some states it is legal to kill a vicious dog that is running at large. For example, the law of Alaska makes it legal to kill a dog if (a) it "has ever bitten or attacked a human being" when "unprovoked", and (b) is running at large:

Sec. 03.55.010. Killing of vicious or mad dog authorized.
Any person may lawfully kill any vicious or mad dog running at large.
Sec. 03.55.020. Dogs deemed vicious.
Any dog which when unprovoked has ever bitten or attacked a human being is considered vicious within the meaning of AS 03.55.010.

The compensation the owner of the injured dog may be entitled to receive is discussed in Compensation for Injury to or Death of a Dog.

Return to top of page

When a rescuer is injured 

If a person intervenes to protect another person or a pet from injury by a dog, and the intervenor is injured, the owner of the dog will be held responsible for the injury, under the legal principle called the "rescue doctrine."

The rescue doctrine is a specific application of the general legal principle which is set forth in case law and in the statutory law of some states. See, for example, California Civil Code section 1714(a):

"Every one is responsible, not only for the result of his willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person, except so far as the later has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself."
The general principle is that, where a person has negligently managed his own person, he is liable for the foreseeable consequences. One such foreseeable consequence is injury to a rescuer. In other words, where an person puts himself or others in danger, it is foreseeable that someone else will attempt to rescue those placed in danger. It has been noted that, "Danger invites rescue." (Justice Cardozo in Wagner v. International Ry. Co. (1921) 232 NY 176, 180, 133 NE 437, 437.)
"Accordingly, although the rescuer may be said to have willingly exposed himself to the danger, such act does not eliminate or excuse the culpability created by the actor's negligence." (Sears v. Morrison, 1999 Daily Journal DAR 11991, 12/1/1999.)
The Supreme Court of California stated:
"One generally owes a duty of care to bystanders who attempt a rescue that becomes necessary due to one's own negligence. Thus, although it is contributory negligence unreasonably to expose oneself to a risk created by the defendant's negligence [citations], a person is not contributorily negligent who, with due care, encounters the risk created by the defendant's negligence in order to perform a rescue necessitated by that negligence." Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries, Inc. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 532, 536-537.)
Absent entirely reckless conduct, a rescuer is not deemed to have brought the injury upon himself under Civil Code section 1714. (Sears, supra, at page 11992.) The defense of provocation is frequently attempted but is not applicable, and some jurisdictions specifically hold that an attempt to rescue cannot be considered a provocation. See, i.e., County of Sacramento Code of Ordinances, section 8.04.260 Vicious Animal: " For purposes of this section, provocation does not include the acts of a person attempting to prevent an animal from physically attacking, mauling, or physically injuring by biting another person or animal."

The Restatement of Torts gives an example of a rescuer intervening to prevent injury to another person:

"A car negligently driven by A endangers B, a child in the highway. C, a bystander, dashes out to rescue the child, and is struck and injured by A's car. A is subject to liability to C." (Restatement Second, Torts (1965), Legal Cause, section 443, comment (d), illustration 4, page 474.)
The rescue doctrine also applies to a pet owner who is injured when he attempts to prevent a dog from attacking his pet. Pets often are considered to be property in the eyes of the law. The Restatement makes clear that the rescue doctrine applies not only to people, but to land and "chattels" -- the legal word for property like pets:
"If the actor's negligent conduct threatens harm to another's person, land or chattels, the normal efforts of the other or a third person to avert the threatened harm are not a superseding cause of harm resulting from such efforts." (Id., section 445, page 475.)
An interesting issue was addressed in the Sears case (supra). The negligent person caused a machine to fall on him. The rescuer attempted to get the machine off the negligent person so it would not suffocate him or otherwise injure him. The rescuer was injured by the machine. 

In prior cases, the doctrine was used under circumstances where the negligent person was not himself in any danger, but had created danger toward others. The legal issue addressed in Sears was whether the rescue doctrine applies to situations where the rescuer intervenes to save the negligent person. The Sears case holds that the rescue doctrine also applies to situations where the rescuer is attempting to save the negligent person.

Return to top of page

www.dogbitelaw.com and each of its sections and products, including Dog Bite Law, The Dog Bite Law Adviser, Dog Bite Litigation Forms, What To Do If Your Dog Is Injured Or Killed, Avoiding Liability When You Train, Shelter or Adopt-Out, Anatomy of a Dog Bite Case, and the foregoing text, are (c) 1999-2008 Kenneth M. Phillips. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part prohibited except where advance permission is granted in writing. Please read the disclaimer and our rules for linking and quoting. Reporters seeking interviews are welcome to click here.
This page last changed on 2/25/08