The Facts of the Case
The case arose from an incident at the North Central Animal Shelter in October 2019. The plaintiff was carrying out her volunteer duties at the shelter. She prepared to take Jaxx, an 84-pound German Shepherd, out of his enclosure. The dog attacked, latching onto the volunteer’s arm with a force that crushed bones and arteries.
During the trial, the plaintiff’s attorneys explained how the injured plaintiff had to drag herself and the dog toward the shelter’s office for assistance, as the dog refused to let go of her arm. The injured volunteer was rushed to a hospital with no blood flow to her hand, due to the damage to her forearm. Her injuries required a 37-day stay in the hospital’s intensive care unit, along with several surgeries and skin grafts to save her hand and forearm. She still has permanent damage and functional limitations, according to her attorneys.
A press release by the injured volunteer’s attorneys stated that the city admitted to failing to follow its own policies about warning volunteers about aggressive animals. The lawsuit claimed that the dog, Jaxx, had been adopted out and returned to the shelter shortly before the attack. The owner who returned Jaxx claimed that the dog had bitten someone while in the owner’s care, leaving puncture marks.
Despite these events, the plaintiff’s attorneys noted, the City of Los Angeles and LA Animal Services didn’t note that Jaxx was aggressive on his kennel card or in his computer file. If the injured plaintiff had seen a warning on Jaxx’s kennel card, she would not have taken him out alone. If a similar warning had been documented in Jaxx’s file, shelter staff would have prevented the plaintiff or any volunteer from taking the dog from his kennel.
Details of the Verdict
At trial, the jury found that the volunteer had signed a waiver before beginning her volunteer work with the North Central Animal Shelter. However, the jury also found that the City of Los Angeles acted with gross negligence.
The jury also found that the elements of California’s dog bite law were met in the case. They determined that the dog did in fact bite the volunteer, and the bite occurred while the volunteer was in a place she had a legal right to be. They determined the dog bite was a “substantial factor” in the volunteer’s injuries and that the City of Los Angeles controlled both the dog and the animal shelter where the dog bite occurred.
The jury decided that the City of Los Angeles’ negligence in failing to warn the volunteer about the dog’s aggressiveness was a “substantial factor” in the plaintiff’s injuries as well. They found that the City had enough warning and knowledge to protect the volunteer from harm but failed to do so.
The jury found that the injured plaintiff was owed over $6.8 million in damages. This number included over $304,000 for past medical expenses, $2.5 million for future medical expenses, $1.25 million for past pain and suffering, and $2.75 million for future pain and suffering. They also found that the plaintiff bore no responsibility for her own harm.
Expert Participation and Takeaways for Attorneys
This case offered an unusually clear example of a situation in which the party controlling a dog had ample resources and knowledge to prevent injuries, yet failed to do so. The injured plaintiff’s lack of information about the dog’s aggression prompted her to put herself in a situation in which harm was not only extremely likely but actually occurred.
Here, expert participation in dog behavior or management was likely less important to the outcome than expert input on the plaintiff’s injuries. Understanding the full extent of the animal attack injuries - and the limitations the plaintiff will face for the rest of her life - helped the jury quantify both her future medical expenses and her pain and suffering.
