BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 265
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 265 (Gatto)
As Amended June 10, 2013
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |75-0 |(May 20, 2013) |SENATE: |39-0 |(June 24, |
| | | | | |2013) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Provides that a local public entity that owns or
operates a dog park shall not be liable for harm to a person or
pet resulting solely from the actions of a dog in a dog park.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that a public entity 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)Specifies that the above provision shall not be construed to
affect the liability of a public entity that exists under law.
3)Specifies that a "public entity" includes, but is not limited
to, cities, counties, cities and counties, and special
districts.
The Senate amendments make clarifying changes, state that
nothing in the bill will affect the liability of a public entity
that exists under law, and add a definition of "public entity."
EXISTING LAW :
1)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.
2)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
AB 265
Page 2
employee or any other person.
3)Provides that a public employee is liable for injury caused by
his or her act or omission to the same extent as a private
person. However, a public employee is not liable for an
injury resulting from his or her act or omission where the act
or omission was the result of the exercise of discretion
vested in him or her.
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
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to protect cities, counties and
special districts that operate a dog park from liability for any
injury or death caused by a dog bite or attack in the dog park.
Existing law already makes the owner of a dog liable for damages
suffered by any person bitten or attacked by a dog in a public
place, even when the owner had no knowledge prior to the bite or
attack that the dog was vicious. Notwithstanding the dog
owner's liability, the author contends that "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 or county looking
for additional remuneration." If the litigant is successful,
the author reasons, limited public resources will be used to pay
damages that should have been paid by the dog's owner. As a
result, the author contends, local officials must decide whether
to provide a useful service to local pet owners "at the risk of
taxpayer dollars intended for other programs."
This bill would provide that a local public entity would not be
held liable for injury or death that results solely for the
actions of a dog in a dog park. This bill, as amended in the
AB 265
Page 3
Senate, also states, however, that the bill will not affect the
liability of a public entity, arguably making the impact of the
bill negligible.
Government Code Section 815, which essentially codifies the
common law rule of governmental immunity, already provides that
a public entity is not liable for injuries caused by its acts or
omissions, unless liability is expressly provided for by another
statute. Public employees, on the other hand, are liable for
injuries caused by their acts or omissions to the same extent as
a private person, and the public entity is, subject to certain
exceptions, required to defend that public employee and pay any
judgment if the injury was done in the scope of employment.
Public employees are not, however, liable for any damages caused
by an act or omission exercised in the discretion vested in
them. In short, one could make a case that local public
entities are already immune from liability for an injury caused
by a dog in a dog park, and the bill expressly states that
nothing in the bill will affect the liability of a public
entity.
The author and supporters do not cite any instances in which a
local public entity in California has been sued for an injury
caused by a dog in a dog park, much less found liable.
Nonetheless, the associations writing in support of this bill
contend that fears of potential liability, real or imagined,
make some of their members hesitant about establishing dog
parks, and that these local entities would be more likely to
create dog parks if there were an express exemption in state
law.
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0001264