Quantcast

Dog Owner Sued Over Attack at Local Park

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Dog Owner Sued Over Attack at Local Park

State Court
D691e8d9 8172 4d73 bde7 59eb790ac607

hammer | https://www.pexels.com/

A dog attack at a local park has led to a significant legal battle, as a woman seeks justice for her injuries. On June 25, 2024, Ariana Garcia filed a complaint in the Ventura Superior Court against Daniel Alcantar, alleging that his dog attacked and severely injured her.

According to the court documents, Garcia was lawfully present at Springville Dog Park in Camarillo, California on May 7, 2024, when Alcantar's dog attacked her without provocation. The complaint states that Garcia sustained severe injuries as a result of the attack. She alleges that Alcantar knew or should have known about the dog's dangerous propensity to bite and attack people and other animals.

Garcia's lawsuit includes three causes of action: strict liability under common law, statutory strict liability under California Civil Code section 3342, and general negligence. In her first cause of action for common law strict liability, Garcia asserts that Alcantar and unnamed defendants (Does 1 through 50) harbored and kept the dog despite knowing its dangerous tendencies. "Defendants knew or had reason to know that said DOG had a dangerous propensity and the habit of attacking and biting people," the complaint reads.

The second cause of action is based on statutory strict liability. Garcia claims that under California Civil Code section 3342, Alcantar is strictly liable for her injuries because she was lawfully on the property when she was bitten by his dog. This statute holds dog owners liable for damages if their dog bites someone in a public place or lawfully in a private place.

In her third cause of action for general negligence, Garcia alleges that Alcantar failed to control his dog properly, resulting in her injuries. The complaint states that "the dangerous condition was in the exclusive control of Defendant Daniel Alcantar." It further argues that Garcia's harm would not have occurred without someone's negligence—a principle known as res ipsa loquitur.

Garcia is seeking general damages according to proof, special damages according to proof, costs of suit incurred herein, prejudgment interest, and any other relief deemed just by the court. The case highlights issues around pet ownership responsibilities and public safety in shared spaces like parks.

Representing Ariana Garcia is attorney Jeffrey D. Wolf from Heimanson & Wolf LLP. The case has been assigned Case No.: 2024CUPP026282 in Ventura Superior Court.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News