Hall

Nelson v. Hall

Good Law
165 Cal. App. 3d 709·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1761·211 Cal. Rptr. 668
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 15, 1985Civ. 23752California2,389 words

Opinion

Opinion

Robie, J.

Plaintiff Rebecca Nelson appeals from a judgment dismissing her complaint against defendants Susan and Richard Hall in an action for personal injuries, entered after the trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. At issue in this appeal is (a) whether the defense of assumption of the risk is available under the “Dog Bite Statute” (Civ. Code, § 3342), and (b) whether a veterinarian or veterinary assistant assumes the risk of dog bites as a matter of law while treating a dog. We hold in the affirmative.

Facts

On January 21, 1983, plaintiff, a veterinary assistant, filed a complaint against defendants for injuries she sustained when she was bitten by defendants’ dog while she assisted in its treatment at the animal hospital where she was employed. Plaintiff alleged that on or about July 30, 1982, while she was at the Skyway Pet Hospital (Skyway), defendants’ dog, Amos, inflicted bites upon her head and face, causing permanent impairment, scarring, and disfigurement. Plaintiff further alleged that by reason of her injuries, she will be limited in her future employment, will require future plastic surgery, and has suffered severe emotional distress.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.