Stephen Salinas v. Paolo Martin
In the Court of Appeal of the State of California
28 August 2008
A119733 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC 06-01023)

Non-Owner of Dogs Held Liable for Animal Attack

This case sprung when a construction employee was attacked by a pit bull not owned by the owner of the property where the attack happened, but by other workers employed by the property owner himself.

It appears that one Paolo Martin, the respondent in this case, owns a residential house in Richmond which he remodeled sometime in 2005. He hired a general contractor for the project, who in turn, hired Steven Salinas, the animal attack victim, as one of the workers in the re-modeling project.

The contractor and his workers were allowed to store equipment and materials in the back yard and garage of the residence. Martin also gave them permission to enter the yard “at any time” to get equipment or materials.

During the construction project, Martin hired Armand and Greg Sanchez to work on the premises as gardeners. The two men had two dogs, a pit bull terrier and a smaller Labrador mix pit bull. Martin also allowed the Sanchez’s to keep the two dogs loose in the fenced back yard and in the van they kept in the premises.

One day, Salinas called his boss because he needed to get some wood planks for scaffolding in Martin’s yard. He was allowed to go ahead and pick up what he needed in accordance with the previous consent his boss obtained from Martin. The very same day however, Martin likewise gave permission to one of the Sanchez’s to let the dogs “roam in the yard”.

When Salinas got into the yard, the smaller dog growled at him, and then the pit bull attacked him. He was able to escape but the pit bull followed into the driveway and continued to repeatedly bite him. The attack stopped only after Salinas jumped into Martin’s car.

Subsequently, Salinas filed suit. But the trial court determined that Martin had “no duty of care” to him to prevent the dog attack.

A motion for summary judgment was filed by Martin and the trial court granted the same. A judgment in Martin’s favor was entered.

Salinas appeals, thus this case. To his relief, the Court of Appeal of the State of California ruled in his favor.

In deciding the issue of whether or not Martin owes a duty of care to prevent the dog attack in his property, the Court of Appeal held that a landowner “has an affirmative duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and therefore must inspect them or take other proper means to ascertain their condition. And if, the exercise of reasonable care, he would have discovered the dangerous condition, he is liable.”

The court said that given Martin’s continued presence in the property, “he not only had much greater awareness of events that occurred there, but he also did not relinquish the right or compromise his liability to prevent foreseeable harm on the premises.”

Martin would have directed the dog owners to keep the dogs in the van or effectively contain them when they were in the yard. Failing this, he could have at least advised Salinas or the contractor, to be aware of the existence of the dogs. But instead, Martin consented to the unrestrained presence of the dogs on his property without informing those known to visit the premises on the potential danger.

For the foregoing reasons, among others, the Court of Appeal concluded that as a matter of law, Martin owed a duty of care to Salinas. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with its (the Court of Appeal) ruling.