Davis

In this action for damages arising from a dog bite, plaintiff Judith C. Davis appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the dog’s owners, defendants Randy Gaschler and Linda Gaschler, on the ground that plaintiff’s reasonable implied assumption of the risk provided a complete defense. We will conclude recent California Supreme Court authority on the subject compels reversal of the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

The following facts are taken from the trial court’s ruling:

Plaintiff’s first cause of action was labeled “Strict Liability" but alleged both strict liability under the “dog bite statute” (Civ. Code, § 3342 ) and negligence in allowing the dog to roam loose.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on alternative grounds that (1) Civil Code section 3342 did not apply to the facts of this case; (2) plaintiff’s assumption of the risk provided a complete defense to both strict liability and negligence; and (3) there was no proximate causation.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants on the ground that plaintiff’s reasonable implied assumption of the risk barred recovery. Plaintiff appeals.

Discussion

I

In order to warrant…