## Facts

- Ruth Mildred Drake and a companion were conducting door-to-door religious ministry and walked up the driveway to the Deans’ residence.
- The companion saw the Deans’ dog, Bandit (described as a pit bull), near the house and warned Drake.
- Bandit ran to Drake, jumped on her, and knocked her to the ground.
- Drake suffered a broken hip and head lacerations from striking rocks.
- Drake alleged she had no prior indication of the dog’s presence before entering the property.
- Drake sued the Deans asserting strict liability and negligence for her injuries.
- The defense offered evidence that Bandit was generally well-behaved and not abnormally dangerous.

## Issues

1. In a negligence claim for injuries caused by a domestic dog, must the plaintiff prove the dog had an abnormal dangerous propensity and that the owner knew or should have known of it, or do ordinary negligence principles apply?
2. Did Drake present sufficient evidence to require standard negligence jury instructions separate from strict-liability requirements?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for the Deans and remanded for a new trial.
- The trial court erred by conditioning negligence instructions on proof of an “abnormal dangerous propensity” known (or chargeable) to the owner.
- The court rejected prior dicta suggesting negligence in dog-injury cases requires proof of vicious or abnormal propensities and owner knowledge.
- Drake presented sufficient evidence to support an ordinary negligence theory, entitling her to standard negligence instructions without strict-liability elements.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence and strict liability for injuries caused by domestic animals are distinct theories with different elements.
- Ordinary negligence liability for dog-caused injuries turns on reasonable care under the circumstances (duty, breach, causation, damages), not on proof of abnormal dangerous propensity or owner knowledge.
- Requirements commonly associated with strict liability for domestic animals (abnormal dangerous propensity and owner knowledge) may not be imported as elements of negligence.
- When evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find a lack of reasonable care in controlling or warning about a dog, the plaintiff is entitled to standard negligence instructions.

## Conclusion

The court held that a plaintiff injured by a dog may proceed on ordinary negligence without proving the dog had an abnormal dangerous propensity known to the owner; because Drake produced sufficient evidence of negligent failure to prevent harm, the refusal to give standard negligence instructions required reversal and a new trial.


Drake v. Dean, 15 Cal. App. 4th 915, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 325 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)