![[Contents]](../icons/rule_toc.gif){kind=icon}
If, in exercising the degree of learning and skill required of a physician as just defined, a physician becomes or should become aware that a patient's [physical] [or] [and] [emotional] condition poses a foreseeable danger of injury to third persons, then the physician has a duty to warn the patient to take such precautions as may be reasonable under the circumstances to avoid such danger. Failure to perform such duty is negligence. | TOP |
In performing professional services for a patient, a physician has the duty to have that degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable physicians, practicing in the same or a similar locality and under similar circumstances.
The further duty of the physician is to use the care and skill ordinarily exercised in like cases by reputable members of the profession practicing in the same or a similar locality under similar circumstances, and to use reasonable diligence and [his] [or] [her] best judgment in the exercise of skill and the application of learning, in an effort to accomplish the purpose for which the physician is employed.
A failure to fulfill any such duty is negligence. | TOP |
A psychotherapist has no duty to warn third persons of a patient's threatened violent behavior, nor any duty to predict such behavior or to protect third persons from such behavior, unless the patient has communicated to the psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against [a] reasonably identifiable potential victim[s]. If a patient has communicated such a threat to the psychotherapist, the psychotherapist then has a duty to warn and to protect the reasonably identifiable potential victim[s]. If you find a psychotherapist had such a duty, the duty is satisfied and there is no liability if the psychotherapist made reasonable efforts to warn the potential victim[s] of the threat and to notify a law enforcement agency of the threat. | TOP |
Plaintiff [also] seeks to recover damage based upon the claim of professional negligence. [Such negligence is commonly referred to as malpractice.]
The essential elements of such a claim are:
1. The defendant was negligent; and
2. The negligence of the defendant caused plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss or harm. | TOP |
It is the duty of a physician who holds [himself] [or] [herself] out as a specialist in a particular field of medical, surgical or other healing science, to have the knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed, and to use the care and skill ordinarily used, by reputable specialists practicing in the same field and in the same or a similar locality and under similar circumstances.
A failure to fulfill such duty is negligence. | TOP |
A physician is not necessarily negligent because [he] [or] [she] errs in judgment or because [his] [or] [her] efforts prove unsuccessful. The physician is negligent if the error in judgment or lack of success is due to a failure to perform any of the duties as defined in these instructions. | TOP |
Where there is more than one recognized method of diagnosis or treatment, and no one of them is used exclusively and uniformly by all practitioners of good standing, a physician is not negligent if, in exercising [his] [or] [her] best judgment, [he] [or] [she] selects one of the approved methods, which later turns out to be a wrong selection, or one not favored by certain other practitioners. | TOP |
It is the duty of a physician who is a general practitioner to [refer a patient to a specialist] [recommend the assistance of a specialist] if under the circumstances a reasonably careful and skillful general practitioner would do so.
If the physician fails to fulfill that duty and undertakes or continues to perform professional services without the aid of a specialist, it is the further duty of the physician to have the knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed and exercise the care and skill ordinarily used by reputable specialists in the same field and in the same or a similar locality and under similar circumstances.
A failure to fulfill any such duty is negligence. | TOP |
Once a physician has undertaken to treat a patient, the employment and duty as a physician to the patient continues until [ended by [consent] [or] [request] of the patient] [or] [the physician withdraws from the case after giving the patient notice and a reasonable time to employ another doctor] [or] [the condition of the patient is such that the physician's services are no longer reasonably required].
[A physician may limit [his] [or] [her] obligation to a patient by undertaking to treat the patient [only for a certain ailment or injury] [or] [only] [at a certain time or place]. If the employment is so limited, the physician is not required to treat the patient [for any other ailment or injury,] [or] [at any other time or place].] | TOP |
Regardless of who employs or pays [a nurse] [or] [an assisting surgeon] who takes part in the performance of surgery or services incidental to such surgery, if, while engaged in any such service, [the assisting surgeon] [the nurse] is under the direction of a certain surgeon in charge, so as to be the surgeon's temporary servant or agent, any negligence on the part of any such assisting person is the negligence of such surgeon. | TOP |
The plaintiff __________ [also] seeks to recover damages based upon a claim of wrongful [life] [birth], that is, malpractice based upon negligent [genetic] [counseling] [and] [testing] [and] [treatment].
The essential elements of such a claim are:
1. The defendant negligently [counseled] [tested] [and] [treated] the [mother] [parents] [__________] of [__________] (name of child) concerning genetic defects and disabilities;
2. The negligent [counseling] [testing] [and] [treating] caused the [mother] [parents] to be unaware of the possibility of this [hereditary] condition thereby depriving [her] [him] [them] [of the opportunity to choose not to conceive a child with a genetic or congenital defect] [of the opportunity of making an informed decision on whether to have a eugenic abortion];
3. The defendant's negligence was a cause of the child __________ being born;
4. The child __________ (name of child) was born with a [congenital] [genetic] [ailment] [defect] [namely, __________]; and
5. The [plaintiff] [child] [parents] thereby sustained special damages.
Special damages are those sums of money which have been reasonably and necessarily expended, and those which will reasonably be expended in the future, to compensate for the extraordinary additional medical care [and training] occasioned by the [genetic] [congenital] [ailment] [defect] | TOP |
The [performance of an operation] [or] [rendition of treatment] to which the patient has not consented is a battery.
[Where a physician or surgeon obtains consent of the patient to one type of [treatment] [or] operation and subsequently [renders substantially different [treatment] [or] [performs a substantially different operation,] it is likewise a battery.]
A battery renders the physician subject to liability for any injury resulting therefrom. | TOP |
It is the duty of a physician to obtain the consent of a patient before treating or operating on the patient. Such consent may be express or may be implied from the circumstances.
[However, if the patient is a minor or incompetent, the authority to consent is transferred to the patient's legal guardian or closest available relative [unless it is impossible or impracticable to obtain such consent because of an emergency as defined in these instructions].] | TOP |
It is the duty of a physician to disclose to the patient all material information to enable the patient to make an informed decision regarding the taking or refusal to take a diagnostic test.
Material information is information which the physician knows or should know would be regarded as significant by a reasonable person in the patient's position when deciding to accept or reject the diagnostic test or procedure. To be material a fact must also be one which is not commonly appreciated.
Failure of the physician to disclose to the patient all material information, including the risk to the patient if the test is refused, renders the physician liable for any injury a cause of which was the patient's refusal to take the test if a reasonably prudent person in the patient's position would not have refused the test if all material information had been given. | TOP |
Except as hereinafter explained, it is the duty of the physician to disclose to the patient all material information to enable the patient to make an informed decision regarding the proposed operation or treatment.
Material information is information which the physician knows or should know would be regarded as significant by a reasonable person in the patient's position when deciding to accept or reject a recommended medical procedure. To be material a fact must also be one which is not commonly appreciated.
There is no duty to make disclosure of risks when the patient requests that [he] [or] [she] not be so informed or where the procedure is simple and the danger remote and commonly understood to be remote.
Likewise, there is no duty to discuss minor risks inherent in common procedures, when such procedures very seldom result in serious ill effects.
However, when a procedure inherently involves a known risk of death or serious bodily harm it is the physician's duty to disclose to the patient the possibility of such outcome and to explain in lay terms the complications that might possibly occur. [The physician or surgeon must also disclose such additional information as would be called for by the standard of skill and care required of the defendant under the same or similar circumstances.]
[A physician has no duty of disclosure beyond that called for by the standard of skill and care required of the defendant under circumstances when [he] [or] [she] relied upon facts which would demonstrate to a reasonable person that the disclosure would so seriously upset the patient that the patient would not have been able to rationally weigh the risks of refusing to undergo the recommended [treatment] [operation].]
Even though the patient has consented to a proposed treatment or operation, the failure of the physician to inform the patient as stated in this instruction before obtaining such consent is negligence and renders the physician subject to liability for any injury caused by the [treatment] [operation] if a reasonably prudent person in the patient's position would not have consented to the [treatment] [operation] if [he] [or] [she] had been adequately informed of all the significant perils. | TOP |
________________ was legally authorized to consent on behalf of __________ was legally authorized to consent on behalf of the plaintiff to the [operation] [treatment] involved in this action.
This instruction does not imply an opinion that such consent was or was not given. Whether consent was given is a question that you must decide. | TOP |
If, in the performance of an authorized operation, a surgeon finds an unanticipated condition and immediate action is necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the patient and it is impracticable to obtain consent to a further operation which the surgeon deems to be immediately necessary, it is the surgeon's duty to do what the occasion demands within the usual and customary practice among surgeons in good standing in the same or similar localities and no additional consent is required. | TOP |
[Ordinarily a physician must obtain the consent of a patient before an operation or treatment. However,] if in an emergency, it is impossible or impracticable to obtain consent, either from the patient or someone legally authorized to consent for [him] [or] [her], a physician may undertake surgery or other treatment provided that what [he] [or] [she] does is within the customary practice of physicians of good standing in the same or a similar locality and under similar circumstances. | TOP |
An emergency is an unforeseen combination of circumstances creating a condition which in the professional judgment of a physician of good standing acting under the same or similar circumstances requires immediate care, treatment or surgery in order to protect a person's life or health. | TOP |
A physician is not liable for damages for injury or death caused in an emergency situation occurring [in the physician's office] [or] [in a hospital] on account of a failure to inform a patient of the possible consequences of a medical procedure where the failure to inform is caused by any of the following:
(1) The patient was unconscious.
(2) The medical procedure was undertaken without the consent of the patient because the physician reasonably believed that a medical procedure should be undertaken immediately and that there was insufficient time to fully inform the patient.
(3) A medical procedure was performed on a person legally incapable of giving consent, and the physician reasonably believed that a medical procedure should be undertaken immediately and that there was insufficient time to obtain the informed consent of a person authorized to give such consent for the patient.
["Emergency situation occurring in the physician's office" means a situation occurring in an office, other than a hospital, used by the physician for the examination or treatment of patients, requiring immediate services for alleviation of severe pain, or immediate diagnosis and treatment of unforeseeable medical conditions, which, if not immediately diagnosed and treated, would lead to serious disability or death.]
["Emergency situation occurring in a hospital" means a situation occurring in a hospital, whether or not it occurs in an emergency room, requiring immediate services for alleviation of severe pain, or immediate diagnosis and treatment of unforeseeable medical conditions, which, if not immediately diagnosed and treated, would lead to serious disability or death.]
[It is the duty of a hospital, such as the defendant __________, to use reasonable care in furnishing a patient the care, attention and protection reasonably required by the patient's mental and physical condition.]
[It is [also] the duty of a hospital, such as the defendant __________, to use reasonable care in [selecting a competent medical staff] [periodically reviewing the competency of its medical staff].]
The amount of caution, attention and protection required in the exercise of reasonable care depends on the known condition and needs of the patient, and must be appropriate to that condition and those needs.
The standard of reasonable care required of a hospital is the care, skill and diligence ordinarily used by hospitals generally in the same or a similar locality and under similar circumstances.
A failure to fulfill any such duty is negligence.
If you should find that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the negligence of defendant ____________________ (doctor) (nurse) you then must determine whether the defendant _____________________ (hospital) is liable for that negligence.
If the defendant ____________________ (doctor) (nurse) was employed directly by the plaintiff or by someone on the plaintiff's behalf, the defendant ____________________ (doctor) (nurse) was not the agent of defendant hospital and the hospital is not liable for the negligence, if any, of said [doctor] [nurse].
A hospital may, as an accommodation to a patient, procure for the patient the services of a physician or nurse, without assuming any control over such services. Also, a hospital may, as an accommodation to both patient and [doctor] [nurse], collect from the patient for the [doctor's] [nurse's] [fees] [wages]. Any such accommodation on the part of the hospital does not, in and of itself, make the [doctor] [nurse] the agent of the hospital.
If, however, the defendant hospital undertakes to provide [medical] [or] [surgical] [or] [nursing] service to the plaintiff by [a doctor or doctors] [a nurse or nurses] in its employ and under its control, then such person was the agent of defendant hospital and the hospital is liable for the negligence, if any, of such [doctor] [nurse], occurring within the scope of the employment. | TOP |
It is the duty of one who undertakes to perform the service of a trained or graduate nurse to have the knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed, and to exercise the care and skill ordinarily used in like cases, by trained and skilled members of the nursing profession practicing their profession in the same or a similar locality and under similar circumstances. Failure to fulfill either of those duties is negligence. | TOP |
A patient has a duty to follow all reasonable and proper advice and instructions regarding care, activities and treatment given by such patient's doctor.
A doctor is not liable for any injury resulting solely from the negligent failure of the patient to follow such advice and instructions.
However, if the negligence of the doctor is a cause of injury to the patient, the contributory negligence of the patient, if any, in not following such advice and instructions, does not bar recovery by the patient against the doctor but the total amount to which the patient would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced in proportion to the negligence attributable to the patient. | TOP |
You must determine the standard of professional learning, skill and care required of the defendant only from the opinions of the physicians [including the defendant] who have testified as expert witnesses as to such standard.
You should consider each such opinion and should weigh the qualifications of the witness and the reasons given for [his] [her] opinion. Give each opinion the weight to which you deem it entitled.
[You must resolve any conflict in the testimony of the witnesses by weighing each of the opinions expressed against the others, taking into consideration the reasons given for the opinion, the facts relied upon by the witness, and the relative credibility, special knowledge, skill, experience, training and education of the witness.] | TOP |
You must decide the following question[s] concerning the injury involved in this case:
Is it the kind of injury which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence?
[Whether the injury is one which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence is to be determined from the evidence presented in this trial by physicians and surgeons called as expert witnesses.]
Was the injury caused while the plaintiff was exclusively under the care or control of the defendant[s]? [The plaintiff is not required to identify the particular agency or instrumentality which caused the injury if unable to do so because of the physical condition of the plaintiff at the time the __________ (medication, treatment, operation) was [administered] [performed].]
[Was the injury due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff which was the cause of the injury?]
If, and only if, you find that the plaintiff's injury was of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; that it was caused while the plaintiff was exclusively under the care or control of defendant[s] [; and that it was not due to any voluntary action or contribution by the plaintiff which was the cause of the injury], you are instructed as follows: | TOP |
In this case, it is your duty to determine first whether the [injury] [condition] for which plaintiff seeks to recover damages was caused by __________ [administered] [performed] by the defendant[s] __________.
If you find that such [medication] [treatment] [operation] was not a cause of any injury to plaintiff, then you will find against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant[s] __________. On the other hand, if you find that plaintiff's [injury] [condition] was caused by such [medication] [treatment] [operation] [administered] [performed] by [any one or more of] the defendant[s], then you are further instructed as to [that] [those] particular defendant[s] that: | TOP |
It is the duty of [a] [an] __________ who holds himself or herself out as a specialist in a particular field of __________, to have the knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed, and to use the care and skill ordinarily used, by reputable specialists practicing in the same field and in the same or a similar locality and under similar circumstances.
A failure to fulfill any such duty is negligence. | TOP |
[A] [An] __________ is not necessarily negligent because [he] [or] [she] errs in judgment or because [his] [or] [her] efforts prove unsuccessful. However, [a] [an] __________ is negligent if the error in judgment or lack of success is due to a failure to perform any of the duties as defined in these instructions. | TOP |
Once [a] [an] __________ has undertaken to serve a client, the employment and duty as [a] [an] __________ continues until [ended by [consent] [or] [request] of the client] [or] [the __________ withdraws from the employment, if it does not unduly jeopardize the interest of the client, after giving the client notice and a reasonable opportunity to employ another __________] [or] [the matter for which the person was employed has been concluded].| TOP |
You must determine the standard of professional learning, skill and care required of the defendant only from the opinions of the __________ [including the defendant] who have testified as expert witnesses as to such standard.
You should consider each such opinion and should weigh the qualifications of the witness and the reasons given for his or her opinion. Give each opinion the weight to which you deem it entitled.
[You must resolve any conflict in the testimony of the witnesses by weighing each of the opinions expressed against the others, taking into consideration the reasons given for the opinion, the facts relied upon by the witness and the relative credibility, special knowledge, skill, experience, training and education of the witness.] | TOP |
In order to recover damages from an attorney for negligence in the handling of a lawsuit, the plaintiff must not only establish that the attorney was negligent but also must establish that but for such negligence the prior lawsuit [would have resulted in a collectible judgment in plaintiff's favor] [would have been successfully defended]. | TOP |
In performing professional services for a client, [a] [an] __________ has the duty to have that degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable __________, practicing in the same or a similar locality and under similar circumstances.
It is a further duty to use the care and skill ordinarily used in like cases by reputable members of the same profession practicing in the same or a similar locality under similar circumstances, and to use reasonable diligence and best judgment in the exercise of professional skill and in the application of learning, in an effort to accomplish the purpose for which the professional was employed.
A failure to fulfill any such duty is negligence. | TOP |
The tracks of a railroad are in themselves a warning of danger. Before a person [drives a vehicle into] [enters upon] the space which would be occupied by a train if it were to pass over such tracks, it is [his] [or] [her] duty to use every reasonable opportunity to look and listen for the approach of train, engine or car on the tracks, and to yield the right of way to any approaching train, engine or car so near as to constitute an immediate hazard. What is included in the term "every reasonable opportunity" depends on all the surrounding circumstances, as they would be met and viewed by a person of ordinary prudence, if the person occupied the same position as the one whose conduct is in question.
[No failure of duty or of the customary practice on the part of those in charge of a train or of anyone handling or supervising any phase of its operation, such as a failure to sound the bell, siren or whistle as required by law [or] [__________] excuses a person going upon a track area from the duty to use ordinary care for his or her own protection.] | TOP |
If the view of the tracks is obstructed, then greater caution is required in approaching them. | TOP |
If an obstruction is such that one cannot obtain, without stopping, a reasonably assuring view of the tracks in both directions before entering the dangerous track area, then ordinarily it is a person's duty to look and listen for the approach of train, engine or car and stop if necessary and not proceed on to the dangerous track area without taking such precautions as a reasonably prudent motorist would take under the then existing circumstances. would take under the then existing circumstances. | TOP |
A person going upon a track area such as that involved in this case is under a duty to exercise ordinary care for [his] [or] [her] own protection by looking and listening for the approach of a train, engine or car. A person is not excused from the exercise of such care by reason of the absence of a flagman, guard or other person who might have been stationed at the crossing to give warning of approaching trains. Neither is the person excused from the exercise of such care by reason of a failure in the operation of a mechanical signal device.
However, the maintenance by a railroad company of a flagman, warning bell, or other signaling device at a railroad crossing is an invitation to a person approaching the crossing to rely upon the efficient operation of the warning system. A person who exercises ordinary care in giving attention to such a warning system and who relies upon the operation of the same, is not required to use the same amount of caution in looking and listening for an approaching engine, train or car as is required when no method of warning is provided.
When a railroad company undertakes to install a mechanical device for warning persons approaching a railroad crossing, its duty is to exercise reasonable care in the planning, construction and installation of such device. After the installation, the railroad company's duty is to exercise reasonable care in the operation of the device and in keeping it in good repair.
To find a railroad company negligent in failing to keep such a device in good repair, it must first appear either that the company had actual notice of the defective condition and was not reasonably diligent in repairing the same or, if the company did not have such notice, that its lack of notice was due to a failure by it to exercise reasonable care [or that the defective condition resulted from the company's own negligence in constructing or installing the device]. | TOP |
It is the duty of a railroad company to exercise reasonable care at public highway crossings to warn and to avoid injury to persons traveling upon the highway and crossing the railroad tracks.
The amount of caution required of the railroad company in the exercise of reasonable care must be commensurate with the hazards and dangers which are apparent to it or should be apparent to a reasonably prudent person under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. | TOP |
The railroad of the defendant __________ involved in this action, was operated on tracks that were laid upon a private right of way [except where those tracks crossed __________]. There is no law that regulates the speed at which the defendant may operate its trains or cars over its private right of way, except the basic principle that it shall exercise ordinary care, and therefore any speed consistent with such care is lawful and proper. | TOP |
It is the duty of a railroad company to exercise reasonable care as to the rate of speed at which it operates its equipment at public highway crossings. | TOP |
The duty of a railroad company in the exercise of reasonable care at public highway crossings is not necessarily fulfilled by compliance with the [ordinance] [regulation] of __________, which has been read to you.
Such [ordinance] [regulation] prescribes only the minimum measure of care required of the railroad company.
You must decide whether or not compliance with such [ordinance] [regulation] amounted to reasonable care under the circumstances shown by the evidence. | TOP |
At the time of the accident in question, the defendant, ________________, was a common carrier operating a ________________, on which the [plaintiff] [deceased] ________________ was a passenger for hire. | TOP |
A common carrier of persons for hire must use the utmost care and diligence for their safe carriage and must exercise a reasonable degree of skill to provide everything necessary for that purpose. [A common carrier is bound to provide a vehicle which is safe and fit for the purpose to which it is put, and is not excused for default in this respect by any degree of care.] The care required of a common carrier is the highest that reasonably can be exercised consistent with the mode of transportation used and the practical operation of its business as a carrier. This requirement must be measured in the light of the best precautions which, at the time of the accident in question, were in common, practical use in the same business and had been proved to be effective. Failure on the part of such carrier to meet the foregoing standard of conduct is negligence.
[A common carrier does not guarantee the safety of its passengers.]
[Its responsibility is not to use the most effective methods for safety that the human mind can imagine or that the best scientific skill might suggest.] | TOP |
It is the duty of a common carrier to select a reasonably safe place to receive or discharge passengers. | TOP |
[A person who is injured while [getting on] [attempting to get on] a moving locomotive or railroad car, without authority from the owner or operator of the railroad]
[or]
[A person who, having boarded a locomotive or railroad car while in motion without authority from the owner or operator of the railroad, is injured [while so riding] [while getting off]] may not recover damages from such railroad for such injuries unless they are caused by an intentional act of such owner or operator with knowledge that serious injury would probably result, or with a wanton and reckless disregard of the probable result of such act. | TOP |
The passenger has a duty to exercise ordinary care for [his] [or] [her] own safety at all times. | TOP |
The relationship of passenger and common carrier is established when: (1) a prospective passenger has arrived at a place which has been designated by custom or notice as a site from which the carrier will take on passengers and (2) by standing alongside or near the probable stopping place of the vehicle, or otherwise has indicated to the operator an intention to board the vehicle, and (3) the operator has taken some action which indicates the operator's intention to receive the prospective passenger. It is not necessary in order to create the relationship of passenger and common carrier under the circumstances just mentioned that there be any physical contact by the prospective passenger with the vehicle of the common carrier.
The relationship of passenger and common carrier continues until such time as the passenger has alighted from and cleared the vehicle and has had a reasonable opportunity to reach a place of safety. | TOP |
The plaintiff __________ [also] seeks to recover damages based upon a claim that defendant engaged in an ULTRA HAZARDOUS activity.
The essential elements of such a claim are:
1. The defendant carried on an ULTRA HAZARDOUS activity;
2. Such activity caused plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss or harm; and
3. The defendant recognized or should have recognized that plaintiff's [person] [or] [property] was likely to be harmed by the [activity] [or] [the unpreventable miscarriage of the activity].
The activity of __________ is an ULTRA HAZARDOUS activity. | TOP |
The plaintiff __________ [also] seeks to recover damages based upon a claim for injuries caused by a naturally dangerous animal.
The essential elements of such a claim are:
1. Defendant owned or kept a[n] __________ (animal); and
2. Such animal caused plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss or harm [; and
3. Such animal is of a species dangerous by nature]. | TOP |
The plaintiff __________ [also] seeks to recover damages based upon a claim for injuries caused by an animal with vicious propensities.
The essential elements of such a claim are:
1. Defendant owned or kept a[n] __________ (animal);
2. The __________ (animal) had a particular vicious or dangerous trait or propensity;
3. The __________ (animal) caused plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss or harm; and
4. Before plaintiff was injured, the defendant knew, or had reason to know, of the vicious or dangerous trait or propensity.
An owner or keeper of an animal has reason to know of the vicious or dangerous traits or propensities of an animal when such person has notice of facts that would inform a reasonable person thereof. | TOP |
The plaintiff __________ [also] seeks to recover damages based upon a claim for injuries arising out of the California dog bite statute.
The essential elements of such a claim are:
1. Defendant owned a dog;
2. The dog bit the plaintiff;
3. The plaintiff, at the time of the bite was in a public place or lawfully in or on a private place [including the property of the owner of such dog]; and
4. The dog bite caused plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss or harm.
The owner's liability for such a dog bite exists regardless of whether the dog previously had been vicious, whether the owner knew of such viciousness, or whether the owner was negligent in respect to the custody or care of such dog.
[A person is lawfully upon the private property of a dog owner, within the meaning of the law which I have stated, when the person is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States of America, or when that person is on such property upon the invitation, expressed or implied, of the owner thereof.]
[One who is not lawfully on the property of a dog owner is a trespasser thereon, and if the trespasser is bitten by the dog, the question of liability must be determined in accordance with the rules of law now to be stated.] | TOP |