Breeden

DISCUSSION

Real party in interest is employed as an animal control officer. While performing

the duty of taking allegedly dangerous dogs into custody, he was bitten. Although we

agree that he is not a “peace officer” within the meaning of Civil Code section 1714.

(see Pen. Code, § 830.9), the so-called “firefighter’s rule” of common law extends

beyond the category of “peace officer” and is simply a variant of the doctrine of

“assumption of the risk.” Real party in interest’s situation falls squarely within the

general category of “occupational assumption of the risk.” (See Priebe v. Nelson (2006)

39 Cal.4th 1112, 1119 [involving a dog kennel worker].) It has been explained that in

terms of duty, “it may be said there is none owed the fireman to exercise care so as not to

require the special services for which he is trained and paid.” (Walters v. Sloan (1977)

Cal.3d 199, 205, cited in Calatayud v. State of California (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1057, 1061.)

It is common knowledge that an animal control officer must regularly deal with

animals that are vicious by nature, or become so due to illness, injury, or fear. He or she

2 is, or should be, trained and compensated to…