Case Background
In the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Mellisa Morrison sued Mitch Christow and Does 1–20. The case involved an alleged dog attack in San Jose. Morrison claimed Christow owned or controlled a dog with dangerous tendencies. She asserted that Christow knew or should have known about the animal’s behavior. The complaint alleged negligence, strict animal liability, and statutory liability under California Civil Code Section 3342.
Cause
On September 23, 2018, Morrison was lawfully present in San Jose when Christow’s dog attacked her. She alleged the dog had an unusually dangerous propensity. Christow, according to the complaint, failed to restrain or warn about the dog. The attack occurred without provocation. Morrison argued that Christow’s failure to act caused the incident. She claimed the defendant’s negligence directly led to her injuries and that his inaction disregarded her safety.
Injury
The attack caused Morrison serious physical injuries. She sustained significant wounds consistent with a dog bite. The injuries required immediate medical treatment and ongoing care. Morrison also suffered emotional distress from the incident. Her recovery process involved physical pain, limitations in daily activities, and the likelihood of future treatment.
Damages
Morrison sought compensatory damages for medical expenses, both past and future. She also claimed loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity. Additional damages included emotional distress, general pain and suffering, and prejudgment interest. She requested punitive damages to deter similar conduct.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Mellisa Morrison
Counsel for Plaintiff: Noel D. Hibbard
Defendant(s): Mitch Christow | ARCH Veterinary Services, Inc.
Counsel for Defendants: Samuel L. Phillips
Claims
Morrison asserted three causes of action:
General Negligence – Christow negligently failed to control or warn about the dangerous dog, causing the attack.
Strict Animal Liability – Christow was strictly liable for keeping an animal with dangerous propensities that injured her.
Civil Code Section 3342 – Christow’s liability under statute for injuries caused by his dog while Morrison was lawfully present in a public or private place.
Defense
In his answer, Defendant Mitch Christow denied all allegations in the complaint and raised multiple affirmative defenses. He argued that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that any injuries were the result of open and obvious conditions voluntarily assumed by the plaintiff. He asserted that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages, that the incident was an unavoidable accident, and that the claims were barred by laches, unclean hands, contributory negligence, contributory willful misconduct, and the fault of third parties.
Christow further contended that the plaintiff assumed the risk, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the action was barred by the statute of limitations. He also raised defenses based on estoppel, waiver, trivial defect, and the Witt v. Jackson doctrine regarding employer negligence. Additionally, he claimed performance was excused by an act of God and reserved the right to assert further defenses as needed.
Summary Judgement
Defendant Mitch Christow moved for summary judgment on Melissa Morrison’s claims of general negligence, strict animal liability, and strict liability under Civil Code §3342. He argued the veterinarian’s rule barred liability because Morrison, a certified veterinary assistant, was caring for his dog, Bruno, at Arch Veterinary Services when the attack occurred. Christow claimed he had no knowledge of any dangerous propensities.
The court found Christow met his burden to show Morrison was providing treatment at the time and that he was unaware of Bruno’s alleged aggression. Morrison’s evidence failed to establish a triable fact on either issue. The court overruled Christow’s evidentiary objection, adopted the tentative ruling, and granted summary judgment in his favor.
Court Documents
Court documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
