BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 265
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 8, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 265 (Gatto) - As Amended: April 29, 2013
SUBJECT : Local government liability: dog parks.
SUMMARY : Limits, for cities, counties and special districts
that own or operate dog parks, the liability for injury or death
of a person or pet due to actions of a dog in that dog park.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that, notwithstanding any other law, a city, county,
city and county, or special district that owns or operates a
dog park shall not be held liable for injury or death of a
person or pet resulting solely from the actions of a dog in
the dog park.
2)Provides that this bill shall not be construed to otherwise
affect the liability of a city, county, city and county, or
special district for negligence that may otherwise exist under
the law.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides, except as otherwise provided by statute, that a
public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury
arises of an act or omission of the public entity or a public
employee or any other person.
2)Provides, except as otherwise provided by statute, that a
public employee is liable for injury caused by his or her act
or omission to the same extent as a private person.
3)Provides, except as otherwise provided by statute, that a
public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his
act or omission where the act or omission was the result of
the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not
such discretion is abused.
4)Provides that a public entity is liable for injury caused by a
dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff
establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at
the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused
AB 265
Page 2
by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition
created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury
which was incurred, and either (a) a negligent or wrongful act
or omission of an employee of the public entity within the
scope of his or her employment created the dangerous
condition; or, (b) the public entity had actual or
constructive notice of the dangerous condition and had
sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to
protect against the dangerous condition.
5)Makes the owner of a dog civilly 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, as specified,
regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's
knowledge of such viciousness.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)This bill provides cities, counties and special districts with
express immunity from liability for the actions of a dog that
result in injury or death of a person or a pet in a dog park
owned or operated by any of these local agencies. This bill
is sponsored by the author.
2)According to the author's office, "Liability costs are one of
the largest barriers preventing small cities and counties from
being able to afford a dog park. Under California law, dog
owners are fully responsible for any injuries caused by their
pet (CA Civil Code § 3342). However, in practice, a bite
victim who is unable to recover costs from the owner of the
pet which caused the damage can turn to the host city and/or
county looking for additional remuneration. If litigants are
successful, limited public resources are then used to
compensate the individual for their injury. Local officials,
therefore, have to decide whether they are willing to offer a
wholesome opportunity for local pet owners at the risk of
taxpayer dollars intended for other programs."
3)Current law generally provides that public entities are not
liable for injuries caused by its acts or omissions. However,
supporters of this measure contend that some local agencies
AB 265
Page 3
have been hesitant to establish dog parks, fearing litigation
if a person suffers injury in a dog park, is unable to recover
adequate costs from the dog owner, and seeks remuneration from
the local agency. While no related lawsuits have been
reported by the author or supporters, they believe this bill
will preempt such litigation and provide cities, counties and
special districts with the assurance they need to open new dog
parks.
4)The California Special Districts Association (CSDA), in
support, argues that "the lack
of liability protection in current law can be a hurdle that
places special districts at a risk.
AB 265 allows these districts to prudently fulfill the needs of
the community without endangering the taxpayers that fund
them."
5)Support arguments : Supporters argue that this bill will
provide local agencies with the assurance they need to operate
dog parks.
Opposition arguments : Opponents could argue that state law
already provides adequate immunity from liability for local
agencies that operate dog parks.
6)This bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on a 9-0
vote on April 2.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Kennel Club
AB 265
Page 4
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Association of California Water Agencies
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
California Association of Recreation and Park Districts
California Park and Recreation Society
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
Cities of Buena Park, Culver City, Laguna Beach and Palm Desert
Civil Justice Association of California
CSAC Excess Insurance Authority
Hayward Area Recreation and Park District
Humane Society of the United States
Paw PAC
Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District
Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District
State Humane Association of California
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958