Small child attacked by pit bull. $297K. Sacramento County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  Plaintiffs were overnight visitors at the defendants' home. Plaintiff Arianna Kelton, then 9 years old and 57 pounds in weight, asked defendant Monica Madrigal if she could visit with the family dog, an adult male pit bull named Munch, who was in the backyard outdoor enclosure. Defendant opened the sliding glass door and let Arianna out.

  Without warning or provocation, the pit bull came up on his back legs and bit into the girl’s face and throat, his lower canine teeth puncturing the throat area near the carotid artery. Munch then pulled Arianna to the ground and began pulling her back away from the door. Arianna’s mother saw the attack taking place, ran outside, and tackled the dog.

  It took multiple adults to subdue the pit bull. The dog was almost immediately put down at the insistence of the property owner. Arianna underwent plastic surgery on her neck for the scars associated with the puncture wounds she sustained. She still has some residual scarring but never pursued psychological counseling.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  That defendants were strictly liable as owners of the pit bull and that defendant Monica Madrigal individually was negligent in allowing a 9-year-old child visiting her home to be allowed into an adult male pit bull's enclosure without proper supervision and without reintroducing the child to the dog, who she had not seen in approximately six months.

  That the attack was either territorial or predatory in nature and that defendants were further negligent in adopting the dog, who was unneutered and already an adult dog by that point. Defendants admitted they knew almost nothing about the dog, except that the prior owner was pregnant and was looking to place Munch into a new home. Plaintiffs contended that the defendants were the true owners of the dog as evidenced by them having the power to overrule their tenant on the ultimate question of life or death. 

  That plaintiff suffered past damages for emotional distress, anxiety, fear of imminent death, disfigurement and loss of self-esteem as a result of the attack, and will suffer future damages, including the need for a follow-up scar revision surgery when she turns 21.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Madrigal contended that Munch was their tenant’s dog, not theirs. Further, that although the tenant was refusing to put the dog down after the attack, defendant Oscar Madrigal specifically admitted to overruling the tenant; further, that they could not be held strictly liable as they were not the dog's owner and that overruling the tenant about putting the dog down did not prove that defendants were the dog's owners.

  That Monica Madrigal was not negligent in adopting an unneutered adult male pit bull despite having no dog experience other than with a Chihuahua.

  That Monica Madrigal was not negligent in allowing a young child to be left alone in the pit bull’s enclosure without any reintroduction after having not seen the dog in months.

  Defendants' retained canine behavior expert, Dr. Polsky, testified that he disagreed with plaintiff's expert, Ron Berman, that the attack was either territorial or predatory in nature, but could not say what kind of attack it was.