Willenberg v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 05 September 1986 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Travis WILLENBERG et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Respondent. David WEULE, D.V.M., Real Party in Interest. B021855. |
Early, Maslach, Nutt & Peterson, Lynn R. Eastman, Los Angeles, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Irving H. Greines, Beverly Hills, for petitioners.
No appearance for respondent.
Hurley, Grassini & Wrinkle, Roland Wrinkle, North Hollywood, for real party in interest.
Petitioners, defendants in a personal injury action, seek a writ of mandate directing the respondent court to grant their motion for summary judgment. We hold that petitioners are entitled to summary judgment and accordingly direct the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate.
Petitioners are the owners of a half-Doberman, half-German Shepherd dog named Pebbles. Real party (plaintiff) is Pebbles' veterinarian. Plaintiff had treated Pebbles throughout her puppyhood without incident, and the dog never exhibited any violent propensities. During a visit to plaintiff's office on March 24, 1984, Pebbles got away from her owner (petitioner Travis Willenberg) and leaped onto plaintiff. Plaintiff managed to fend her off but she jumped on plaintiff again, forcing plaintiff to "wrestle her down." In doing so plaintiff injured his shoulder. Pebbles did not bite plaintiff, one factor which plaintiff claims distinguishes this case from Nelson v. Hall (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 709, 211 Cal.Rptr. 668.
The plaintiff in Nelson was a veterinarian's assistant who filed suit after being bitten by a "patient" who had not previously exhibited any violent tendencies. The dog's owners moved for summary judgment on the ground that dog bites were an inherent risk of the veterinary profession. In affirming the summary judgment in favor of defendants, the court, referring to the declaration of plaintiff's employer, stated: (Nelson v. Hall, supra, 165 Cal.App.3d at p. 712, 211 Cal.Rptr. 668.)
The court concluded that "[a] veterinarian or a veterinary assistant who accepts employment for the medical treatment of a dog, aware of the risk that any dog, regardless of its previous nature, might bite while being treated, has assumed this risk as part of his or her occupation." (Nelson v. Hall, supra, 165 Cal.App.3d at p. 715, 211 Cal.Rptr. 668, emphasis in original.) In a footnote, the court stated: "We emphasize that the defense of assumption of the risk extends only to the danger which the injured person has knowingly assumed; i.e., the danger the dog will bite while being treated." (Id. at p. 715, fn. 4, 211 Cal.Rptr. 668, emphasis in original.)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. William Jessup Univ.
...is a hazard endemic to the occupation of a veterinary assistant. (Id. at p. 714, 211 Cal.Rptr. 668 ; see Willenberg v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 185, 187, 229 Cal.Rptr. 625 ["a visit to the veterinarian's office can bring about unpredictable behavior in a normally docile animal, ......
-
Gregory v. Cott
...34 Cal.Rptr.2d 630, 882 P.2d 347, citing Cohen v. McIntyre (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 650, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 143, Willenberg v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 185, 229 Cal.Rptr. 625, and Nelson v. Hall (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 709, 211 Cal.Rptr. 668.) We noted, however, that the veterinarian's r......
-
Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries, Inc.
...during treatment. (See Cohen v. McIntyre (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 650, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 143 [veterinarian]; Willenberg v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 185, 229 Cal.Rptr. 625 [same]; Nelson v. Hall (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 709, 211 Cal.Rptr. 668 [veterinary assistant].) Although the elements......
-
Knight v. Jewett, S019021
......v. . Michael JEWETT, Defendant and Respondent. . No. S019021. . Supreme Court of California . Aug. 24, 1992. . Page 3 . [3 Cal.4th 299] [834 P.2d 697] Steven ... Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Ordway v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 98, 243 Cal.Rptr. 536, defendant maintained that "reasonable implied ...Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 176, 183, 229 Cal.Rptr. 612; Willenberg v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 185, 186-187, 229 Cal.Rptr. [3 Cal.4th 331] 625). And in ......