California
California Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 23, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 23, 2026. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

California holds dog owners strictly liable for bite injuries under Cal. Civ. Code § 3342, meaning the owner is responsible regardless of whether the dog had ever bitten before. Victims bitten in a public place or while lawfully on private property do not need to prove owner negligence.
Estimate your claim: Use our free California Dog Bite Settlement Calculator to see a rough settlement range based on the medical bills, the bite location, the victim's age, and California's liability rule.
What Is California's Dog Bite Law?
California is a strict liability state for dog bites. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 3342, dog owners are legally responsible for bite injuries even if they had no reason to believe their dog would bite anyone.

The statute states that the owner is liable for damages "regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness." This means a first-time bite carries the same legal weight as a bite from a dog with a known history of aggression.
To win a dog bite claim under this statute, the victim must prove three elements:
- The defendant owned the dog
- The dog bit the victim
- The victim was in a public place or lawfully on private property when the bite occurred
The victim does not need to show the owner was negligent or that the owner knew the dog had bitten before.
How Strict Liability Differs from the One-Bite Rule
Many states follow the "one-bite rule," which protects dog owners from liability for a first bite if they had no reason to know the dog was dangerous. California rejected this approach.
Under California's strict liability framework, the owner is responsible from the very first incident. There is no free pass for a first bite. The only question is whether the legal elements under § 3342 are met.
However, California's strict liability statute applies only to bite injuries. If a dog knocks someone down, scratches them, or causes injury without biting, the victim must pursue a negligence claim under general tort law instead.
California Dog Bite Statistics
California, Florida, and Texas had the most dog-related injury insurance claims in the nation in 2024, according to the Insurance Information Institute. Nationally, insurers paid $1.57 billion across 22,658 dog-related injury claims in 2024, an average of $69,272 per claim; the Institute's release does not break these totals out by state.
The California Department of Healthcare Access and Information recorded an all-time record 48,596 emergency room visits for dog bites in 2022, a 12% increase over 2021. Children aged 5 to 9 face the highest risk of severe dog bites, and seniors over 65 have the highest hospitalization rates.
What Damages Can Dog Bite Victims Recover?
Dog bite victims in California can recover both economic and non-economic damages without proving the owner was at fault.
Economic Damages
| Damage Type | What It Covers |
|---|---|
| Medical expenses | Emergency care, surgery, hospitalization, rehabilitation, prescriptions |
| Future medical costs | Ongoing treatment, reconstructive surgery, physical therapy |
| Lost wages | Time missed from work during recovery |
| Loss of earning capacity | Reduced ability to earn income due to lasting injuries |
| Property damage | Clothing, personal items, or other property damaged during the attack |
Non-Economic Damages
| Damage Type | What It Covers |
|---|---|
| Pain and suffering | Physical pain from the bite and recovery |
| Emotional distress | Anxiety, PTSD, fear of dogs, nightmares |
| Scarring and disfigurement | Permanent visible injuries affecting appearance |
| Loss of enjoyment of life | Inability to participate in activities due to injuries |
California does not cap non-economic damages in dog bite cases. The total award depends on the severity of the injuries, the impact on the victim's life, and the evidence presented.
Legal Defenses Available to Dog Owners
Even under strict liability, California law provides several defenses for dog owners.
Provocation
If the victim provoked the dog through teasing, hitting, tormenting, or other aggressive behavior, the owner may not be liable. The provocation must be significant enough to cause a normally calm dog to react.
Trespassing
Cal. Civ. Code § 3342 only protects victims who were in a public place or "lawfully in a private place." If the victim was trespassing on private property at the time of the bite, the strict liability statute does not apply.
However, this defense may be weaker when the trespasser is a young child who did not understand property boundaries.
Comparative Negligence
California follows a pure comparative negligence standard. If the victim was partially at fault for the bite, their damages are reduced by their percentage of fault. For example, if a jury finds the victim was 30% responsible for provoking the dog, a $100,000 award would be reduced to $70,000.
Under pure comparative negligence, a victim can recover damages even if they were up to 99% at fault, though the award is reduced proportionally.
Assumption of Risk
People who voluntarily accept the risk of being bitten may have limited or no recovery. This defense most commonly applies to veterinarians, dog groomers, kennel workers, and other professionals who work with animals as part of their job.
Police and Military Dog Exception
Section 3342(b) blocks a strict liability claim against a government agency using a dog in military or police work, but only in defined situations. The bite must have occurred while the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or provoking act, or while the dog was assisting an agency employee in one of four enumerated tasks:
- Apprehending or holding a suspect, where the employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect's involvement in criminal activity
- Investigating a crime or possible crime
- Executing a warrant
- Defending a peace officer or another person
Under § 3342(d), the exception applies only where the agency has adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or military work listed above.
Innocent bystanders keep their claim. Section 3342(c) states that the exception "shall not apply in any case where the victim of the bite or bites was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act or acts that prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work." A bystander who was not involved in the underlying incident, and was not suspected of involvement, is not covered by the exception and retains the ordinary strict liability claim under § 3342(a).
Dangerous and Vicious Dog Designations
California law creates two categories of dangerous dogs under Cal. Food & Agric. Code §§ 31601-31683.
Potentially Dangerous Dog (§ 31602)
A dog qualifies as "potentially dangerous" if, when unprovoked, it:
- Required a person to take defensive action to prevent bodily injury on two occasions within 36 months (while off the owner's property)
- Bit a person causing a less-than-severe injury
- Killed, seriously bit, or injured a domestic animal on two occasions within 36 months (while off the owner's property)
Vicious Dog (§ 31603)
A dog qualifies as "vicious" if it:
- Inflicted severe injury on or killed a human being without provocation
- Was previously designated as potentially dangerous and continued the dangerous behavior after the owner was notified
Requirements for Owners of Dangerous Dogs
State law imposes a short list of duties on the owner of a potentially dangerous dog. Most of the restrictions people associate with a dangerous dog designation are not in the state code at all; they come from city and county programs.
| State-Law Requirement | Statute | Details |
|---|---|---|
| License and vaccinate | § 31641 | The designation is recorded in the dog's registration, and the local agency may charge an added fee |
| Confinement at home | § 31642 | The dog must be kept indoors or in a securely fenced yard it cannot escape and children cannot trespass into |
| Leash and adult control off the property | § 31642 | Restrained by a substantial leash of appropriate length and under the control of a responsible adult. State law sets no muzzle requirement |
| Notice of death, sale, or removal | § 31643 | The owner must notify animal control if the dog dies, is sold or transferred, or is moved out of the jurisdiction |
| Removal from the list | § 31644 | The designation comes off after 36 months with no repeat of the qualifying behavior |
For a dog found to be vicious, § 31645 allows animal control to destroy the dog if releasing it would create a significant threat to public health, safety, and welfare. If the dog is not destroyed, the judicial authority must impose conditions on its ownership, and any enclosure it orders has to meet the definition in § 31605. Under § 31646, the city or county may also prohibit the owner from keeping any dog for up to three years.
Local programs adopted under § 31683 commonly add conditions that state law does not require. These apply only where a local ordinance says so, so check your city or county animal control code:
| Typical Local Condition | Details |
|---|---|
| Warning signs | Posted at property entrances |
| Liability insurance | Some ordinances set a minimum coverage amount |
| Muzzle in public | Required by some local programs, not by state law |
| Microchipping | For identification and tracking |
| Spay/neuter | Required in some jurisdictions |
Failing to meet a state requirement or a local condition can lead to impoundment and, for a dog found vicious, destruction proceedings under § 31645.
Owner Responsibilities Under California Law
Beyond the strict liability statute, California imposes several ongoing duties on dog owners.
Duty to Remove Danger After a Bite
Under Cal. Civ. Code § 3342.5, any owner of a dog that has bitten a person must take "reasonable steps as are necessary to remove any danger presented to other persons from bites by the animal."
If a dog bites a person on at least two separate occasions, any person, the district attorney, or city attorney may bring an action to determine whether the owner has taken sufficient steps to prevent future bites. A court can order any remedy it deems appropriate, including removal of the dog from the area or destruction of the animal.
Leash Laws
California does not have a statewide leash law, but most cities and counties enforce their own leash ordinances. Check your local municipal code for specific requirements.
Vaccination and Licensing
California law requires rabies vaccination for all dogs. Most jurisdictions also require annual licensing and registration.
Statute of Limitations for Dog Bite Claims
Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1, dog bite victims have two years from the date of the bite to file a personal injury lawsuit.
Key deadlines and exceptions to be aware of:
| Situation | Deadline |
|---|---|
| Standard personal injury claim | 2 years from the date of the bite |
| Claim against a government entity | Must file an administrative claim within 6 months of the bite |
| Minor victim (under 18) | Statute is tolled until the child turns 18, then 2 years to file |
| Discovery rule | If injury was not immediately apparent, 2 years from the date of discovery |
Claims against government entities follow a shorter timeline under the California Government Claims Act. You must file an administrative claim with the government agency within six months. If the claim is denied, you then have six months from the date of the denial notice to file a lawsuit.
Missing these deadlines will almost certainly bar your claim permanently.
Landlord Liability for Dog Bites
California landlords can be held liable for a tenant's dog bite under certain circumstances. Unlike dog owners, landlords are not subject to strict liability. Instead, the victim must prove two things:
- Actual knowledge. The landlord knew the tenant's dog had dangerous propensities. This can be shown through prior bite reports, complaints from other tenants, or direct observation of aggressive behavior.
- Ability to act. The landlord had the authority to remove the dog or take other steps to prevent the bite, such as enforcing a pet policy or terminating the lease.
Landlords have no general duty to inspect for dangerous pets. Liability only arises when the landlord has actual knowledge of the danger and the power to address it.
Criminal Penalties for Dog Owners
In serious cases, California dog owners may face criminal charges in addition to civil liability.
Penal Code § 399: Mischievous Animal Causing Death or Injury
Under Cal. Penal Code § 399, if a person who owns or controls a dangerous animal, knowing its propensities, willfully lets it go at large or keeps it without ordinary care:
- Felony if the animal kills a person
- Misdemeanor or felony if the animal causes serious bodily injury
Penal Code § 399.5: Dogs Trained to Fight or Attack
Under Cal. Penal Code § 399.5, anyone who owns or controls a dog trained to fight, attack, or kill faces criminal liability if the dog bites a person on two occasions or causes substantial physical injury in one incident. Penalties include:
- Imprisonment in state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years, or county jail for up to 1 year
- Fines up to $10,000
- Both imprisonment and fines
Local Ordinance Violations
Many California cities impose misdemeanor penalties for violating leash laws, failing to license dogs, or failing to control a dangerous dog. Penalties vary by jurisdiction but typically include fines and possible impoundment of the animal.
Breed-Specific Legislation in California
California state law prohibits breed-specific legislation. Under Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31683, no local program regulating dogs may be specific as to breed.
This means California cities and counties cannot declare a specific breed, such as pit bulls, Rottweilers, or German Shepherds, inherently dangerous or vicious, or ban it outright. Any dangerous dog determination must be based on the individual dog's documented behavior, not its breed. One narrow exception exists: under Health & Safety Code § 122331, a city or county may still adopt a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter or breeding-restriction ordinance, as long as the ordinance does not declare the breed dangerous or vicious.
Local governments may still adopt their own programs for controlling potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, provided those programs are breed-neutral.
How to File a Dog Bite Claim in California
If you have been bitten by a dog in California, take these steps to protect your legal rights:
- Get medical treatment immediately. Dog bites carry infection risks including rabies. Keep all medical records and receipts.
- Report the bite. Contact local animal control and file a police report. This creates an official record of the incident.
- Document the scene and your injuries. Photograph bite wounds, torn clothing, the location where the bite occurred, and the dog if possible.
- Collect witness information. Get names and contact information from anyone who saw the attack.
- Identify the dog and owner. Record the owner's name, address, phone number, and homeowner's or renter's insurance information.
- Preserve physical evidence. Keep torn or bloody clothing and any other items damaged in the attack.
- Watch the deadline. You have two years to file a lawsuit (six months if a government entity is involved).
- Consult a personal injury attorney. Many dog bite lawyers offer free consultations and work on contingency, meaning you pay nothing unless you recover compensation.
More California Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is California a strict liability state for dog bites?
Yes. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 3342, dog owners in California are strictly liable for bite injuries. The victim does not need to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous or that the owner was negligent. The owner is responsible as long as the victim was in a public place or lawfully on private property.
How long do I have to file a dog bite lawsuit in California?
You have two years from the date of the bite under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1. If a government entity is involved, you must file an administrative claim within six months. Minors have until two years after turning 18.
Can I still recover damages if I was partly at fault for the dog bite?
Yes. California follows a pure comparative negligence standard. Even if you were partially at fault, such as provoking the dog, your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault rather than eliminated entirely.
Can a landlord be held liable for a tenant's dog bite in California?
A landlord can be liable if they had actual knowledge that the tenant's dog was dangerous and had the authority to remove the dog or enforce a pet policy. Landlords are not subject to strict liability and have no duty to inspect for dangerous pets.
Can California cities ban specific dog breeds?
No. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31683 provides that no local program regulating dogs may be specific as to breed, so a California city or county cannot ban a breed or declare a breed potentially dangerous or vicious. Any dangerous dog determination must rest on the individual dog's documented behavior. The statute carries one written exception: under Health & Safety Code § 122331, a city or county may adopt a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter or breeding ordinance, provided it does not declare the breed dangerous or vicious.
Injured in California? Get a free case review from a personal-injury attorney
If someone else's negligence caused your injury, you may be owed compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Get a free, no-obligation review from a California personal-injury attorney. Most work on contingency, so there is no upfront cost.
Updates
Corrected the police and military dog exception to state its four statutory circumstances and the Civil Code § 3342(c) protection for bystanders, separated the genuine state-law duties for dangerous dogs from conditions that only local ordinances impose, and aligned the breed-specific FAQ answer with the spay/neuter exception in Health & Safety Code § 122331.
Removed fabricated California-specific dog bite insurance statistics and hospital-visit figures and replaced them with the real, sourced numbers (the Insurance Information Institute's figures are national, not California-specific; the real hospital figure is 48,596 California ER visits in 2022 per the state's Dept. of Healthcare Access and Information), and added the statutory spay/neuter exception to the breed-specific-legislation ban.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
California Civil Code
§ 3342In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) 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. (b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the bringing of an action pursuant to subdivision (a) against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite or bites occurred while the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following: (1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect’s involvement in criminal activity. (2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 45 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):California courts have applied section 3342 strict liability subject to primary assumption of risk. Nelson v. Hall (1985) held assumption of the risk is a complete defense to a veterinary assistant bitten during treatment, and Priebe v. Nelson (2006) extended that veterinarian's rule to bar a kennel worker's section 3342 claim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Nelson v. Hall (California Court of Appeal 1985, 165 Cal. App. 3d 709)✓A veterinary assistant was bitten in the face while helping sedate a dog for surgery; the court held assumption of the risk is a complete defense to a section 3342 claim, so the owner was not strictly liable for a bite during treatment.
- Priebe v. Nelson (California Supreme Court 2006, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 553)✓A commercial kennel worker was mauled while walking a boarded pit bull; the California Supreme Court extended the veterinarian's rule and held primary assumption of risk barred her strict liability claim under section 3342, leaving her common law claims for retrial.
- Gomes v. Byrne (California Supreme Court 1959, 51 Cal. 2d 418)✓A salesman entered a yard after the dog barked and followed him along the fence for 50 feet, and was bitten; the court held assumption of risk remains available under section 3342 and that the evidence supported the finding he accepted an obvious risk.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Dog Bite Laws by State: Liability and Victim Rights
§ 3342.5In force
(a) The owner of any dog that has bitten a human being shall have the duty to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to remove any danger presented to other persons from bites by the animal. (b) Whenever a dog has bitten a human being on at least two separate occasions, any person, the district attorney, or city attorney may bring an action against the owner of the animal to determine whether conditions of the treatment or confinement of the dog or other circumstances existing at the time of the bites have been changed so as to remove the danger to other persons presented by the animal. This action shall be brought in the county where a bite occurred. The court, after hearing, may make any order it deems appropriate to prevent the recurrence of such an incident, including, but not limited to, the removal of the animal from the area or its destruction if necessary.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2015
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Deloza (California Supreme Court 1998, 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 255)“…[“[offenders convicted on two or more separate occasions”]; Civ. Code, § 3342.5, subd. (b) [“[w]henever a dog has bitte…”
- Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Department of Animal Regulation (California Court of Appeal 1986, 183 Cal. App. 3d 372)“…in the absence of an ordinance requiring a noticed hearing, Civil Code section 3342.5 2 governs the destruction…”
- Wylie v. Gresch (California Court of Appeal 1987, 191 Cal. App. 3d 412)“…ave abandoned their claim that respondents had a duty under Civil Code section 3342.5, subdivision (b), to have the dog remov…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 335.1In forcecited in 7 of our articles
Within two years: An action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 320 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):California courts have applied Section 335.1's two-year period. Aguilera v. Heiman (2009) held it did not operate retroactively to revive a personal injury claim already barred under former Section 340(3). Pugliese v. Superior Court (2007) applied it to bar assault and battery counts, counting each incident separately.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Quiroz v. Seventh Avenue Center (California Court of Appeal 2006, 45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 222)“…in opposition to the motion that the then recently enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1, which provides for a two-year—instead…”
- Pugliese v. Superior Court (California Court of Appeal 2007, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 681)✓A wife sued her husband over roughly 15 years of domestic abuse. The court held 335.1 runs separately from each incident, so her assault and battery counts, last alleged act in 2001, were barred, though her emotional distress count and her domestic violence claim were timely.
- Aguilera v. Heiman (California Court of Appeal 2009, 174 Cal. App. 4th 590)✓A gutter installer hurt by a high voltage wire in 1997 sued the property manager in 2007. The court held 335.1's two-year period, effective January 1, 2003, did not operate retroactively to revive a claim already barred under the former one-year statute, and affirmed dismissal.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim, California Motorcycle Accident Laws (2026): Deadlines & Helmets, California Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability
California Food and Agricultural Code
§ 31683In force
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. Except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, no program regulating any dog shall be specific as to breed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
California Penal Code
§ 399In force
(a) If any person owning or having custody or control of a mischievous animal, knowing its propensities, willfully suffers it to go at large, or keeps it without ordinary care, and the animal, while so at large, or while not kept with ordinary care, kills any human being who has taken all the precautions that the circumstances permitted, or which a reasonable person would ordinarily take in the same situation, is guilty of a felony. (b) If any person owning or having custody or control of a mischievous animal, knowing its propensities, willfully suffers it to go at large, or keeps it without ordinary care, and the animal, while so at large, or while not kept with ordinary care, causes serious bodily injury to any human being who has taken all the precautions that the circumstances permitted, or which a reasonable person would ordinarily take in the same situation, is guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2013
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Olguin (California Supreme Court 2008, 45 Cal. 4th 375)“…dog bites, and poor dog owner/handler control. (See, e.g., Pen. Code, §§ 399 [mischievous animal causing death or se…”
- People v. Vasquez (California Court of Appeal 2010, 190 Cal. App. 4th 1126)“…rol a mischievous animal that caused serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 399, subd. (b)), 1 Orlando Vasquez agreed…”
- Sea Horse Ranch, Inc. v. Superior Court (California Court of Appeal 1994, 24 Cal. App. 4th 446)“…roam at large with the result that it kills a human being (Pen. Code, § 399). 1 The charges arise from…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 399.5In force
(a) Any person owning or having custody or control of a dog trained to fight, attack, or kill is guilty of a felony or a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, if, as a result of that person’s failure to exercise ordinary care, the dog bites a human being, on two separate occasions or on one occasion causing substantial physical injury. No person shall be criminally liable under this section, however, unless he or she knew or reasonably should have known of the vicious or dangerous nature of the dog, or if the victim failed to take all the precautions that a reasonable person would ordinarily take in the same situation. (b) Following the conviction of an individual for a violation of this section, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether conditions of the treatment or confinement of the dog or other circumstances existing at the time of the bite or bites have changed so as to remove the danger to other persons presented by the animal.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Lindstrom CA3 (California Court of Appeal 2021)“…ce, the dog caused substantial physical injury to Salazar. (Pen. Code, § 399.5, subd. (a).)1 In count two, the prosecu…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
California Health and Safety Code
§ 122331In force
(a) Cities and counties may enact dog breed-specific ordinances pertaining only to mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding requirements, provided that no specific dog breed, or mixed dog breed, shall be declared potentially dangerous or vicious under those ordinances. (b) Jurisdictions that implement programs described in subdivision (a) shall measure the effect of those programs by compiling statistical information on dog bites. The information shall, at a minimum, identify dog bites by severity, the breed of the dog involved, whether the dog was altered, and whether the breed of dog was subject to a program established pursuant to subdivision (a). These statistics shall be submitted quarterly to the State Public Health Veterinarian.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Cal. Civ. Code § 3342 - Dog Bite Strict Liability(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Cal. Civ. Code § 3342.5 - Duty After Bite; Second Occurrence(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 - Statute of Limitations for Personal Injury(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Cal. Food & Agric. Code §§ 31601-31683 - Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Dogs(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Cal. Penal Code § 399 - Mischievous Animal Causing Death or Injury(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Cal. Penal Code § 399.5 - Dog Trained to Fight, Attack, or Kill(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31683 - Prohibition on Breed-Specific Legislation(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Insurance Information Institute - Dog-Related Injury Claim Payouts 2024(iii.org)
- CBS News Los Angeles - Dog Bites Send Record Number of People to Emergency Room (California Dept. of Healthcare Access and Information data)(cbsnews.com)
- Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122331 - Breed-Specific Spay/Neuter Ordinances(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31641 - Licensing and Vaccination of Potentially Dangerous Dogs(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31642 - Confinement and Leash Requirements for Potentially Dangerous Dogs(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31645 - Destruction of a Vicious Dog and Court-Imposed Ownership Conditions(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31605 - Definition of Enclosure(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)