Pritchard v. Sharp

California Court of Appeal

Pritchard v. Sharp

41 Cal. App. 3d 530, 116 Cal. Rptr. 9, 1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 809

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 3, 1974

DocketCiv. 32758

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 41 Cal. App. 3d 530 (Pritchard v. Sharp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pritchard v. Sharp, 41 Cal. App. 3d 530, 116 Cal. Rptr. 9, 1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 809 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The sole question we are called upon to decide on this appeal is whether an action brought under section 3342 of the Civil Code, the “dog bite statute,” is governed by the one-year statute of limitations of subdivision 3 of section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or the three-year statute of limitations of subdivision 1 of section 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 3342 of the Civil Code was originally enacted in 1931. (Stats. 1931, ch. 503, p. 1095.) The statute merely changed the proof required under the common law action which preexisted the statute by deleting the requirement that to establish liability it must be alleged and proved that the dog was “vicious.”

The action is one for the recovery of damages for personal injuries. The controlling section is therefore subdivision 3 of section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Aetna Cas. etc. Co. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 785, 787-788 1264 P.2d 5, 41 A.L.R.2d 1037]; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Fabian (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 427, 429-432 [39 Cal.Rptr. 570], hg. den.; 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) Actions, § 310, p. 1153.)

Judgment of dismissal affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

THE COURT.

The sole question we are called upon to decide on this appeal is whether an action brought under section 3342 of the Civil Code, the “dog bite statute,” is governed by the one-year statute of limitations of subdivision 3 of section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or the three-year statute of limitations of subdivision 1 of section 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 3342 of the Civil Code was originally enacted in 1931. (Stats. 1931, ch. 503, p. 1095.) The statute merely changed the proof required under the common law action which preexisted the statute by deleting the requirement that to establish liability it must be alleged and proved that the dog was “vicious.”

The action is one for the recovery of damages for personal injuries. The controlling section is therefore subdivision 3 of section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Aetna Cas. etc. Co. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 785, 787-788 1264 P.2d 5, 41 A.L.R.2d 1037]; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Fabian (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 427, 429-432 [39 Cal.Rptr. 570], hg. den.; 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) Actions, § 310, p. 1153.)

Judgment of dismissal affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Cal. App. 3d 530, 116 Cal. Rptr. 9, 1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pritchard-v-sharp-calctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack