Facts

On June 29, 2017, plaintiff Art Fortt, then 51, an HVAC repairman, went to defendants' home to repair their air conditioning system. He was met at the front door by defendants' adult son. The son asked where he needed to work. Plaintiff advised the son that he was replacing a motor in the furnace, which was located in the garage and plaintiff entered the garage and began his work. When he completed the installation of the motor, he needed to turn on the thermostat to make sure the motor was operating as it should.

Plaintiff walked into the house through the door connecting to the garage. The thermostat was located several feet from the door. He then encountered the defendants' male Great Dane. The dog was standing approximately 10 feet from plaintiff, who stopped in his tracks. The dog did not bark or growl. After looking at the dog for several seconds and not seeing any aggressive behavior, plaintiff reached for the thermostat. At that point, the dog lunged at plaintiff and bit him in the face and arm before the dog was pulled off him by the son.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended he was startled to see the dog because he had not been informed the homeowners had dogs. Plaintiff had been to the home twice before this date to do work and had not been told they had dogs on either on these occasions and had not seen any dogs then.

Plaintiff claimed that defendants were liable both under the dog bite statute and for their negligence in not following their claimed practice of putting the dog in a closed room when workers came to the house so that the dog would not have contact with workers.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants claimed that the son told plaintiff when he came to the home that if he needed to come in the house, he should ring the doorbell to advise the son. If he had done that, the son would have put the dog in a secure place. Therefore, plaintiff did not have permission to enter the home and the dog bite statute did not apply. Defendants also denied that they were negligent. Defendants also claimed that plaintiff was at fault for the incident and that he should have backed out the door when he saw the dog. By reaching for the thermostat, he provoked the dog.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $300,000 (policy limits). Defendants offered $40,000.

Specials in Evidence

Meds: $10,000

Injuries

Plaintiff suffered multiple lacerations to the face, both under and over the left eye, forehead and bridge of nose requiring multiple sutures. He also underwent scar revision surgery, which reduced the scars. However, at conversational distance, the scars are visible. He also suffered wounds to arms.

Result

Plaintiff's verdict for $320,000. The jury found zero comparative fault on plaintiff.

Other Information

Plaintiff is filing cost bill and seeking prejudgment interest per CCP section 998.

Poll

10-2 (for plaintiff on dog bite statute), 12-0 (negligence)