After a dog bite, an insurance company may look for reasons to shift blame to you. It might argue that you approached the dog, entered a yard, or ignored a warning. However, the state does not bar recovery simply because you share some responsibility. Instead, comparative negligence in San Diego dog bite cases may affect fault division and the damages available.
The practical effect of this distinction can be substantial. Being partly responsible for a bite does not bar you from compensation; it may only reduce it. Under these circumstances, our dog bite attorneys can examine how the bite happened, respond to claims that you were to blame, and help you understand the compensation you may be entitled to under the law.
The state does not use traditional contributory negligence, so that will not apply to a San Diego dog bite claim. Instead, it follows a rule called pure comparative negligence, and the difference is significant. Under the older contributory approach still used in a few states, a victim who was even one percent at fault could recover nothing. California rejects that result.
Instead, your compensation is reduced in proportion to your share of fault. If a jury decides you were 20 percent responsible for a bite, you can still recover 80 percent of your damages, and even a victim found mostly at fault can recover something. This matters in a dog bite case, because the owner remains strictly liable under California Civil Code § 3342 even when your own conduct is in question.
To lower what they owe, insurers look for evidence that you contributed to the attack. Their argument usually centers on one of a few situations:
Courts judge provocation from the dog’s point of view, so even an act that seemed harmless, such as reaching toward a food bowl, can count. Because the state does not use contributory negligence, none of this necessarily ends your San Diego dog bite claim, but it can shift a percentage of fault onto you and lower your recovery. This is why the way you present these facts matters so much in a dog bite injury claim.
Because fault is based on percentages, the way a case is investigated and presented can change the outcome. A thorough response often includes witness accounts, the dog’s history, photographs of the scene, and medical records that tie the injury to the attack rather than to anything you did.
Since 1947, our firm has handled complex injury cases that depend on exactly this kind of detail. That experience can matter when an insurer tries to assign you fault, because a well-documented dog bite claim is far harder to discount than an undocumented one. We can answer any other questions you have about contributory negligence and how sharing fault for a dog bite may affect a San Diego injury claim.
A dog bite is difficult enough without being told the injury was your own fault. The reality of comparative negligence in San Diego dog bite cases is more forgiving than the phrase implies, though partial fault can still reduce what you recover. Acting sooner rather than later gives you the best chance to preserve the evidence your case depends on.
If an insurer is trying to shift blame onto you, our attorneys can help you respond and protect your recovery. Contact CaseyGerry to schedule a consultation and learn more about your options.
