Definition
Comparative fault is California's system for apportioning liability between parties based on each party's degree of responsibility for the injury, established by Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975).
In California Dog Bite Cases
California uses pure comparative fault — an injured dog bite victim recovers even if partly at fault, with recovery reduced proportionally. If a victim is found 30% at fault for provoking a dog, they recover 70% of total damages. The owner's strict liability under Civil Code Section 3342 survives partial comparative fault; it only becomes a complete defense when the provocation or trespass threshold is fully met.
California Law Context
California dog bite law under Civil Code Section 3342 provides a strict liability framework distinct from general negligence. The role of Comparative Fault in this framework — how it affects liability, damages, defenses, or procedure — is governed by the specific interaction between Section 3342's elements and the broader California personal injury law applicable to all civil claims.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Comparative Fault in California dog bite law?
Comparative fault is California's system for apportioning liability between parties based on each party's degree of responsibility for the injury, established by Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975).
How does Comparative Fault apply to California dog bite cases?
California uses pure comparative fault — an injured dog bite victim recovers even if partly at fault, with recovery reduced proportionally. If a victim is found 30% at fault for provoking a dog, they recover 70% of total damages. The owner's strict liability under Civil Code Section 3342 survives partial comparative fault; it only becomes a complete defense when the provocation or trespass threshold is fully met.
How does this term affect whether a dog bite victim can recover damages?
Comparative Fault affects dog bite recovery in California because Civil Code Section 3342 creates a strict liability framework where most general negligence defenses are unavailable. The specific role of Comparative Fault in this strict liability system — as opposed to a general negligence system — determines its practical significance to dog bite claimants and defendants in California.