Legal Opinion · Dissent

Drake v. Dean

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 6, 1993No. C007051Published

1Dissent

*934SPARKS, J., Dissenting.

Today, the majority holds that the owners of a dog not previously vicious or dangerous are liable in negligence for failing to control the animal because it is foreseeable that such a dog will jump up on people and knock them down. This greatly, and I think mistakenly, expands the liability of dog owners in California.

As the majority sees it, “[although the jury found Bandit had no vicious or dangerous propensity, that finding did not resolve the question of negligence tendered by plaintiff’s complaint.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 931.) To the contrary, that finding did…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Bily v. Arthur Young & Co.California Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Ballard v. UribeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Uccello v. LaudenslayerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  5. DeRobertis v. RandazzoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1983

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API