Facts

On Dec. 12, 2008, plaintiff Jane Doe, a 34-year-old single woman was bitten by a German shepherd mixed breed dog at apartment leased in a large high-end apartment complex. Plaintiff attended a dinner party at the dog owner's apartment. Plaintiff, her friend and the dog owner were seated around the dinner table. The German shepherd mix sat between Plaintiff and the owner. As Plaintiff reached down to pet the dog, it rose up and bit her about her face. She tried to bury her face between her knees, but the dog continued to bite her about the ear and back of the neck.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff argued Chee v. Amanda Gouldt Property Management, which required actual knowledge of a dog's vicious propensities before a landlord or property management company could be held liable for injuries inflicted by the dog did not apply. Plaintiff argued the property management company's policy prohibiting German Shepherds and mixes of German Shepherds created an assumed duty. Likewise, Plaintiff argued neither the landlord nor property management company "ceded" control of rental unit as occurred in Chee because they prohibited German Shepherds and mixes.

Plaintiff argued the property management company negligently delegated the task of identifying and rejecting German Shepherds and mixes. The company failed to provide subordinates exemplar photos, give them a list of breed characteristics, train them in identification, and require a veterinarian or other qualified person to make breed determination.

Plaintiff claimed that this was what the employer required employees to do without guidance and was therefore actually a basis for liability.

Plaintiff argued apartment defendants had a duty to make an independent determination of the dog's breed because of the foreseeability that tenants would intentionally or unwittingly deceive them.

Plaintiff asserted that the property management company was anywhere from 10 percent to 50 percent at fault for the damages.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The apartment owner and property management company contended that Chee decision was directly on point and precluded liability. Therein, the Court of Appeals held absent actual knowledge of a dog's vicious propensities, neither a property management company nor a landlord can be liable for injuries inflicted by the dog.

The apartment defendants claimed Plaintiff could not establish the dog was a German shepherd mix. Visual identification is fraught with error and imprecise. The apartment defendants argued the dog owner was entirely responsible for the incident, since he allegedly lied to them by "certifying" the dog was not a prohibited breed when he first executed his application. The apartment defendants further argued there would be 100 percent fault on the dog owner and 0 percent fault on the apartment complex/management company.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $500,000 by way of a CCP 998 offer to compromise. Apartment defendants offered $10,001 in a CCP 998 offer to compromise, and then offered $125,000 10 days before trial. On the fourth day of trial, Plaintiff accepted $435,000 from the apartment defendants and $30,000 from dog owner.

Specials in Evidence

$11,000 medical expenses; $3,000 therapy $3,000 $250,000 $100,000 future therapy

Damages

Plaintiff worked in the life sciences industry. She was working towards an MBA at the time of the incident. She claimed the incident resulted in a delay in graduation and would adversely impact her earnings throughout the balance of her career. Plaintiff intended to transition to a marketing or sales position post MBA. Then, Plaintiff would be required to interface with existing customers. As a result of the facial scarring, Plaintiff contended she would face both conscious and sub-conscious prejudice which would adversely impact her earning capacity, causing a delay in hiring, delay in promotion, reduced raises when awarded and reduced bonus due to inability to meet sales incentives she would otherwise have enjoyed.

Injuries

Plaintiff sustained 7-centimeter facial lacerations from corner of left mouth in curvilinear fashion back towards her left ear and down under mandible, pre-auricular laceration to ear lobe, nose, and wedge laceration to her lower lip. Plaintiff was transported to San Francisco General Hospital where she underwent surgical repair of her wounds. Despite excellent work, she had a prominent scar from the corner of her mouth to below her chin. Plaintiff saw four plastic surgeons. Each recommended various treatments to minimize the appearance of the scar and subsequent treatment to include surgical excision of the scar – z-plasty or w-plasty, laser treatment, liposuction above the scar to smooth out contour, fat injection in the scar to again smooth out contour and face lift when appropriate. All agreed there would be permanent residual noticeable scar despite recommended care.

Result

The case settled for $465,000.

Other Information

The investigation revealed the apartment complex had a policy prohibiting dogs with a history of aggression and certain large dogs, which are disproportionately responsible for inflicting severe injuries including human fatalities. The property management company employed a marketing associate, who processed the dog owner's application, and a community director, who approved the dog owner's application at the apartment complex. The marketing associate appeared without counsel when subpoenaed to testify prior to Plaintiff adding the property management company, its employees and the landlord as defendants and admitted the photograph of the German Shepherd mix sent to him along with the owner's rental application looked like a German Shepherd. He also admitted the rule prohibiting German Shepherds and mixes was a safety rule. Finally, he admitted this safety rule was for the benefit of the entire "apartment community," including guests such as Plaintiff. After adding the apartment management company and the property owners as defendants, formal discovery established the apartment management company employees had a financial incentive to approve the dog owner's application. Further, the marketing associate and community director testified their employer provided them no training or resources such as exemplar photos or lists of physical characteristics to aid in identification of prohibited breeds.