Gina Conte v. Paula Patton—Negligence and Strict Liability — Dog Bite
 |
| Actress Paula Patton at the 2022 BET Awards at Microsoft Theater L.A. Live on June 26, 2022 — Photo by Image Press Agency |
Plaintiff Gina Conte stated that she visited Paula Patton’s home in Calabasas on August 2, 2020. She said while at the home Patton’s German shepherd mix dog named “Bear” attacked and bit her. In court documents filed on July 27, 2022, Conte accused Patton of negligence in the dog bite incident. Conte's suit prays actual damages, special damages (costs associated with medical expenses, lost wages etc.), punitive damages, legal fees with interest and other relief deemed by the court.
Court documents state that Conte “was hurt and injured in her health, strength, and activity, sustaining serious and significant injury to her body and shock to her nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused, and will continue to cause mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering.” Patton's answer filed on September 15, 2022 claims many, many legal defenses and ends with a prayer for dismissal, legal fees incurred and other relief deemed proper by the court.
Case Information
Case No.: 22STCV24168
Los Angeles Superior Couthouse
312 N Spring St, Los Angeles, CA 90012-4701
Plaintiff: Gina Conte is represented by Maho & Prentice, LLP
Defendant: Paula Patton is represented by Lavely & Singer, PC
Hearing: 1/10/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 32; Final status conference—Not Held - Continued by Stipulation
New Dates
4/18/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 32
Final Status Conference4/18/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 32
5/03/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 32
Non-Jury Trial
7/24/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 32
Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal
Update
On April 16, 2024 the case was settled for an undisclosed sum.
The Plaintiff's Case
Negligence
The defendant had duties to ensure that the dog was properly supervised, kept, contained and controlled, and that the property was properly secured so that the dog could not harm persons lawfully thereon. As it relates to negligence, known as breach of duty, this is legally satisfied with 2 criteria which are:(2) by failing to recognize a significant risk of harm or injury which any other reasonable person would have recognized.
Conte mentions that Patton’s dog had a history of attacking guests referring to a 2017 incident involving a man named Alberto Matiz. In regards to negligence criteria, the following are satisfied:
Unclean Hands
In Padideh v. Moradi, during discovery the obtained subpoenaed bank and other records, as well as deposition testimony, revealed to them that Setayesh Padideh's denials at her deposition in the underlying action about her lack of involvement in her husband, Dr. Ali Heidari's business and financial operations and bank accounts were not entirely true or candid.The California Court of Appeal held that:
- the party alleged to be negligent had a duty to the injured party or to the general public,
- the defendant's action or omission was negligent or not what a reasonable person would have done
- that the damages were caused by the negligence.
Strict liability refers to possessions that are inherently dangerous, such as explosives, wild animals, etc. This is analogous to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in which control, ownership and damages are sufficient to hold the owner liable.
The defendant's case
Assumption of Risk
Defendant alleges that, if plaintiff was injured or damaged, then Plaintiff knew full well of the risk involved and expressly and without coercion entered into the risk. Strict liability in cases of dog bite the owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the dog owner's property, regardless of the former viciousness or the owner's knowledge of any viciousness. Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 553, 39 Cal.4th 1112, 140 P.3d 848.
Defendant alleges that, if plaintiff was injured or damaged, then Plaintiff knew full well of the risk involved and expressly and without coercion entered into the risk. Strict liability in cases of dog bite the owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the dog owner's property, regardless of the former viciousness or the owner's knowledge of any viciousness. Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 553, 39 Cal.4th 1112, 140 P.3d 848.
Admission of Wrongdoing
Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part because plaintiff admitted that she herself was the one responsible for engaging in the negligent conduct that proximately caused her alleged injuries. Plaintiff wrote to Defendant:"I hope you know that I, in no way, hold you responsible." This statement doesn't exonerate Patton of responsibility under either negligence or strict liability doctrines.
Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part because plaintiff admitted that she herself was the one responsible for engaging in the negligent conduct that proximately caused her alleged injuries. Plaintiff wrote to Defendant:"I hope you know that I, in no way, hold you responsible." This statement doesn't exonerate Patton of responsibility under either negligence or strict liability doctrines.
Problems with the Defendant's Case
No Right to Exemplary Damages
Plaintiff s request for exemplary damages is barred because the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to recover exemplary damages. Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant from similar conduct. However, strict liability and prior bad acts by the dog do not support this assertion.Admission of Non-Liability
Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff admitted that Defendant was not responsible for her alleged injuries and that she would not hold defendant responsible for said injuries. Specifically, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant: "I hope you know that I, in no way, hold you responsible." This statement doesn't exonerate the defendant from legal responsibility.
Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff admitted that Defendant was not responsible for her alleged injuries and that she would not hold defendant responsible for said injuries. Specifically, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant: "I hope you know that I, in no way, hold you responsible." This statement doesn't exonerate the defendant from legal responsibility.
Comparative Negligence
Plaintiff's own conduct, or the conduct of other entities and individuals caused or contributed to plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages. This conduct comparatively reduces any percentage of liability attributed to defendant. It is unclear how Conte was comparatively negligent.
Plaintiff's own conduct, or the conduct of other entities and individuals caused or contributed to plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages. This conduct comparatively reduces any percentage of liability attributed to defendant. It is unclear how Conte was comparatively negligent.
Doctrine of Laches
The doctrine prevents a court from giving relief to a party who has delayed bringing a lawsuit so long that arriving at the truth of the matter is now difficult, or granting relief against the other party now is not fair. The statute of limitations had not passed for personal injury cases which is two years in California. It is unclear how the estoppel by laches would apply.
Failure to Mitigate
Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by virtue of plaintiff's failure to mitigate the damages. It is unclear how the plaintiff could mitigate the damages from a dog bite but it's still in the defendant's pleading.
Plaintiff s claims are barred in whole or in part by unclean hands. Recent case, Padideh v. Moradi, 89 Cal. App. 5th 418, 305 Cal. Rptr. 3d906 (2023), affirms that lying or misrepresentation negates a claim for damages. However, the defendant's argument is murky as to how the plaintiff's claims are untrue or deceptive.
In Padideh v. Moradi, during discovery the obtained subpoenaed bank and other records, as well as deposition testimony, revealed to them that Setayesh Padideh's denials at her deposition in the underlying action about her lack of involvement in her husband, Dr. Ali Heidari's business and financial operations and bank accounts were not entirely true or candid.The California Court of Appeal held that:
1. substantial evidence supported jury's finding that plaintiff engaged in misconduct by not being candid in her deposition in underlying action;
2. substantial evidence supported jury's finding that plaintiff's misconduct directly related to the harm claimed by defendants asserting the defense of unclean hands; and
3. defendants were not required to prove that plaintiff's misconduct precipitated the underlying action or affected the result.
2. substantial evidence supported jury's finding that plaintiff's misconduct directly related to the harm claimed by defendants asserting the defense of unclean hands; and
3. defendants were not required to prove that plaintiff's misconduct precipitated the underlying action or affected the result.
Waiver
Plaintiff s claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver. Waiver refers to intentionally or voluntarily giving up one's recognized right. However, it is unclear how this doctrine would apply.
The strict liability dog bite statute is designed to prevent dogs from becoming a hazard to the community by imposing a duty of care on every dog owner to prevent his or her dog from biting persons in a public place or lawfully in a private place, and assigning strict liability for its breach. Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 553, 39 Cal.4th 1112, 140 P.3d 848.
The Blain Test/Unclean Hands
Whether the particular misconduct is a bar to the alleged claim for relief depends on (1) analogous case law, (2) the nature of the misconduct, and (3) the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries. Kendall-Jackson, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at pp. 978–988, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 743.
§ 3294. Exemplary damages; when allowable; definitions
In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
Plaintiff s claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver. Waiver refers to intentionally or voluntarily giving up one's recognized right. However, it is unclear how this doctrine would apply.
The Law
California Civil Code §3342 — Dog bites/liability of owner
(a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.
California Civil Code §3342 — Dog bites/liability of owner
(a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.
The strict liability dog bite statute is designed to prevent dogs from becoming a hazard to the community by imposing a duty of care on every dog owner to prevent his or her dog from biting persons in a public place or lawfully in a private place, and assigning strict liability for its breach. Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 553, 39 Cal.4th 1112, 140 P.3d 848.
Whether the particular misconduct is a bar to the alleged claim for relief depends on (1) analogous case law, (2) the nature of the misconduct, and (3) the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries. Kendall-Jackson, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at pp. 978–988, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 743.
§ 3294. Exemplary damages; when allowable; definitions
In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
Legal Grounds in this case
a) that the party alleged to be negligent had a duty to the injured party or to the general public,
b) that the defendant's action (or failure to act) was negligent-not what a reasonably prudent person would have done,
c) that the damages were caused by the negligence. An added factor in the formula for determining negligence is whether the damages were "reasonably foreseeable" at the time of the
carelessness.
Special damages
Special damages in personal injury lawsuits relate to reimbursement for particular, out-of-pocket expenditures incurred as a consequence of the harm.
Negligence is accidental as distinguished from "intentional torts" (assault or trespass) or from crimes, but a crime can also constitute negligence, such as reckless behavior as in what was alleged to have been done by Alec Baldwin. Negligence can result in all types of accidents causing physical and/or property damage, but can also include business errors and miscalculations, such as a manager or employer that doesn't ensure a safe work environment. In making a claim for damages based on an allegation of another's negligence, the moving party must prove:
b) that the defendant's action (or failure to act) was negligent-not what a reasonably prudent person would have done,
c) that the damages were caused by the negligence. An added factor in the formula for determining negligence is whether the damages were "reasonably foreseeable" at the time of the
carelessness.
Special damages
Special damages in personal injury lawsuits relate to reimbursement for particular, out-of-pocket expenditures incurred as a consequence of the harm.
- Medical expenditures: Medical expenditures include the cost of medical treatment, such as hospital stays, doctor visits, and rehabilitation, as well as any future medical care required as a consequence of the accident.
- Lost wages: The amount of money lost due to the injury, including both time spent healing and potential future earnings.
- Property damage: The expense of repairing or replacing damaged property due to the injury.
- Transportation expenses: Commuting to and from medical appointments, rehabilitation institutions, and other injury-related locations.
- Home modification costs: Home modification costs include adapting a home to accommodate a handicap or injury, such as constructing wheelchair ramps or changing bathroom fittings.
- Loss of consortium: A spouse or family member loses companionship and support from an accident.
Strict liability
Also referred to as “absolute liability,” applies to such issues as injuries or other damages caused by a defective product, damages caused by animals, and engaging in certain hazardous activities. More specifically, strict liability refers to possessions that are inherently dangerous, such as explosives, wild animals, poisonous snakes, etc. This is analogous to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in which control, ownership and damages are sufficient to hold the owner liable.
Estoppel
A bar or impediment (obstruction) which precludes a person from asserting a fact or a right or prevents one from denying a fact. Such a hindrance is due to a person's actions, conduct, statements, admissions, failure to act or judgment against the person in an identical legal case. Estoppel includes being barred by false representation or concealment (equitable estoppel), failure to take legal action until the other party is prejudiced by the delay (estoppel by laches).
A bar or impediment (obstruction) which precludes a person from asserting a fact or a right or prevents one from denying a fact. Such a hindrance is due to a person's actions, conduct, statements, admissions, failure to act or judgment against the person in an identical legal case. Estoppel includes being barred by false representation or concealment (equitable estoppel), failure to take legal action until the other party is prejudiced by the delay (estoppel by laches).
%202023%20Block%20Party%20at%20Universal%20Studios%20Backlot%20on%20May%2020,%202023%20in%20Universal%20City,%20Los%20Angeles,%20California,%20United%20States.%20%E2%80%94%20Photo%20by%20imagepressagency.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment