Immunity Granted for Public Entity That Decided Against Euthanizing an Animal
Summary: The plaintiff brought an action for failure to discharge mandatory duties under Government Code section 815.6 regarding dangerous and unvaccinated dogs under state law and local ordinances against the County of Humboldt after he was attacked by two pit bulls. The lower court granted the County’s demurrer without leave to amend finding there was no mandatory duty. In Danielson v. County of Humboldt, (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1, a Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, finding the cited statutes neither imposed a mandatory duty, nor were intended to prevent the type of injury pleaded by Danielson.
Discussion: Plaintiff, Candis Danielson, was on property owned by Donald Mehrtens when she was attacked and mauled by Mehrtens’ two pit bulls, Sissy and Huss. As a result of the incident, Danielson suffered wound infections, posttraumatic stress disorder, and emotional distress. Mehrtens surrendered both dogs to Humboldt County which held a hearing to determine whether they were dangerous. Both dogs were euthanized, and Mehrtens was barred from owning dogs for three years.
Danielson claimed the County had prior contacts with Mehrtens involving dogs, including previously dispatching animal control officers. She further alleged Mehrtens had previously been cited by the County for dogs being at large, unvaccinated, and unlicensed. Sissy had also previously been quarantined by the County for biting a neighbor.
The County argued that the dangerous dog statutes cited by Danielson were not designed to protect against the particular kind of injury at issue. Danielson, meanwhile, requested the trial court take judicial notice of Humboldt County’s status as a designated rabies area and argued the Humboldt County animal control officer who responded to Sissy’s previous dog bite incident had a mandatory duty under local ordinance to petition Animal Control Director for a hearing at that time to determine whether Sissy was potentially dangerous or a nuisance. Danielson further claimed that the County had a mandatory duty to impound Sissy under state vaccination statutes and local ordinance.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with Danielson finding neither the Humboldt County Code nor the California Health and Safety Code imposed a mandatory duty. Notably, the Court explained that an enactment requiring a public entity to conduct an investigation under certain circumstances (here the Humboldt County Code requiring a dangerous dog hearing) does not, without more, impose a mandatory duty to take a certain specified action. Thus, the Court reasoned, the requirement of the dangerous dog hearing did not impose a duty to euthanize a dog. The Court rejected Danielson’s argument that that County caused her injury by failing to euthanize Sissy. The Court also found no mandatory duty to impound a dog for failure to vaccinate or license in the Humboldt Code. Using the plain language of the statute, the Court reasoned that the section of the Health and Safety Code cited to by Danielson did not use the “explicit and forceful language” required for finding a mandatory duty.
A copy of the case can be found here.
This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. It is intended to provide general information about legal developments and is not legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Maria Nozzolino.