Trusted Content
目錄
加州嘅業主對狗咬傷嘅責任
加州係美國少數有「對狗咬傷嘅嚴格責任法例」嘅州之一。
具體嚟講，加州民法典第3342條規定：「任何狗嘅主人都要為任何人喺公眾地方或者合法喺私人地方被狗咬嘅人所造成嘅損害負責，包括狗主人嘅財產，無論狗之前嘅惡毒或者主人知道呢種惡毒。」
呢個意思係，除咗少數例外，狗主幾乎永遠都要為佢隻狗所造成嘅傷害支付損害賠償。為咗呢個目的，狗主嘅業主保險通常會包括狗咬責任嘅保障。
當業主可能要為由租客嘅狗引起嘅狗咬傷負責
唔係所有狗主都有業主保險，而且，唔係所有狗主都擁有自己嘅屋企的確，加州好多租客都係狗主，但係冇必要嘅保險去保障佢哋嘅狗所造成嘅傷害。
好消息：被租客嘅惡狗傷害嘅人唔係成日都唔好彩。喺加州，業主可能要為租客嘅狗造成嘅損害負責。
同狗主對狗咬嘅責任唔同，業主對狗咬嘅責任唔係嚴格嘅責任侵權，即係話如果租客嘅狗喺公眾地方或者合法喺私人地方咬傷受害者，業主就唔會自動負責。
Instead, landlord liability is governed by the two-part test adopted in the 1975 case Uccello v. Laundenslayer.
- 首先，業主一定要對狗狗嘅惡性有認識，重要嘅係，呢啲知識可以用實際知識或者情況知識去證明。
- Second, the landlord must have had the ability to prevent foreseeable harm. This means that the landlord must have had sufficient control over the situation to have been able to prevent the dangerous bite. For example, a landlord would have sufficient control if the landlord had the right to insist that a tenant remove the dog from the apartment. (Dennis v. City of Orange.)
個案研究：1995年業主對狗咬人身傷害嘅責任被證明
Donchin v. Guerrero, a case that went before the California Court of Appeals in 1995, demonstrates how the Courts apply the two-part test for landlord liability for dog bites.
喺唐欽，有個女人（「珍 · 多」）帶住佢隻西施犬喺離屋企唔夠一個街區嘅地方散步，珍多同佢嘅西施犬被一對喺附近嘅公寓大廈逃離嘅羅特維爾犬襲擊。
Jane Doe 告咗狗主同狗主住嘅公寓樓嘅業主具體嚟講 , Jane Doe 指業主知道狗狗喺屋企，狗狗有危險傾向，亦都有能力喺問題發生之前控制佢。
當業主試圖駁回個案嗰陣， Jane Doe 以郵政工作者同鄰居嘅宣誓聲明嘅形式提供證據，證明業主知道隻狗有惡性傾向。
因為 Jane Doe 能夠整理出呢啲證據，所以佢可以喺法庭上向業主尋求損害賠償。
洛杉磯同加州狗咬傷法
可惜，狗咬傷係常見嘅，甚至係致命嘅。喺美國，每年有 450 至 470 萬人因為狗咬傷而死亡。
One such avenue, if applicable, is to pursue the dog owner’s landlord. The attorneys at MKP Law Group, LLP have years of experience representing dog bite victims including actions against both dog owners and landlords. Contact MKP Law Group, LLP today at 310-870-3395 to speak with one of our attorneys. All consultations are 100% free.
