Case Background
Hannah Cardozo filed a personal injury lawsuit against Rafael Tapia, Sr., Rafael Tapia, Jr., and Juana Maria Tapia in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. The case, assigned number CIVSB2228704, was filed on December 21, 2022, and went to trial before the Honorable Judge Carlos M. Cabrera in Department S24. The trial ran from March 2 through March 11, 2026.
Cause
On November 5, 2021, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Hannah Cardozo was bitten by a dog owned by the Tapia family at their residence located at 15957 Randall Avenue, Fontana, California. According to the complaint, the dog lunged at Cardozo and tore her lip in half. Cardozo was rushed to the hospital, where she checked in around 11:30 p.m. the same night. She was discharged the following day at approximately 6:00 a.m. Medical professionals prescribed morphine to manage the pain from the injuries.
Injury
The dog bite caused severe damage to Cardozo's lower lip. She sustained permanent disfigurement along with lasting physical and emotional injuries. The affected area was primarily her lower lip, which the dog tore apart during the attack.
Damages Sought
Cardozo sought compensatory and punitive damages according to proof. Her claimed losses included wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damages, property damage, loss of earning capacity, and punitive damages.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Hannah Cardozo, an individual
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
Defendant: Rafael Tapia, Sr., Rafael Tapia, Jr., and Juana Maria Tapia
· Counsel for Defendant: C. Patrick Milligan
Claims
Cardozo brought her case under two main causes of action. The first was general negligence, alleging that the Defendants negligently allowed their dog to cause her injuries. The second was premises liability, arguing that the Defendants failed to properly maintain safe conditions on their property. Cardozo also invoked California's Dog Bite Statute under Civil Code Section 3342, which imposes strict liability on dog owners when their animal bites someone who is lawfully on private property or in a public place. The complaint named Rafael Tapia, Sr., Rafael Tapia, Jr., and Juana Maria Tapia as Defendants, along with Does 1 through 20.
Defense
Rafael Tapia, Sr. filed a First Amended Answer on July 15, 2024, denying all allegations in the complaint. The defense raised several affirmative defenses. Under comparative fault, the defense argued that Cardozo's own careless and reckless conduct contributed to her injuries. The assumption of risk defense claimed that Cardozo knowingly placed herself in danger by entering a closed bedroom at night without permission, aware that the dog was confined inside. The defense further argued that Cardozo knew the dog was regularly kept in the owner's private bedroom, particularly at night, and she was never given permission to enter that room or be alone with the dog. Despite this knowledge, she voluntarily entered the dark room alone and exposed herself to the animal. The defense also contended that the Defendants did not know and had no reason to believe the dog would bite anyone or that it possessed a vicious or dangerous nature. According to the defense, the dog reacted defensively when Cardozo entered the dark room and awakened it, which was outside the dog's normal behavior.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned a Special Verdict on March 16, 2026, after a trial that lasted from March 2 to March 11, 2026. The verdict addressed multiple theories of liability through a detailed series of questions.
On the Dog Bite Statute claim, the jury found that Rafael Tapia, Sr.'s dog did not bite Cardozo, and Juana Maria Tapia's dog did not bite Cardozo. However, the jury found that Rafael Tapia, Jr.'s dog did bite Cardozo. The jury also determined that Cardozo was in a public place or lawfully on private property when bitten, and that the dog was a substantial factor in causing her harm.
On the strict liability claim for a domestic animal with dangerous propensity, the jury found that all three Defendants — Rafael Tapia, Sr., Juana Maria Tapia, and Rafael Tapia, Jr. — owned, kept, or controlled the dog. However, the jury concluded that the dog did not have an unusually dangerous nature or tendency, which ended further inquiry under this theory.
Regarding landlord liability, the jury found that both Rafael Tapia, Sr. and Juana Maria Tapia owned the property but determined that neither of them knew or should have known before the incident that the dog kept on the premises was dangerous. This resolved the landlord liability questions against Cardozo.
On the negligence claim, the jury found that none of the three Defendants — Rafael Tapia, Sr., Juana Maria Tapia, or Rafael Tapia, Jr. — were negligent. Because no negligence was found, the jury did not reach questions about comparative fault percentages.
Under premises liability, the jury found that both Rafael Tapia, Sr. and Juana Maria Tapia owned, occupied, or controlled the property. However, the jury determined that neither was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property.
Despite the mixed findings, because the jury found liability under the Dog Bite Statute against Rafael Tapia, Jr., it proceeded to assess compensatory damages. The jury awarded Hannah Cardozo a total of $100,000 in compensatory damages, broken down as follows: $1,500 for past economic loss, $45,000 for future economic loss, $20,000 for past non-economic loss, $33,500 for future non-economic loss, and no prejudgment interest.
On the question of punitive damages, the jury found that Rafael Tapia, Sr. did not engage in conduct with malice, oppression, or fraud. Juana Maria Tapia likewise did not engage in such conduct. Rafael Tapia, Jr. also did not engage in conduct with malice, oppression, or fraud. Accordingly, no punitive damages were awarded against any Defendant.
The foreperson signed and dated the verdict on March 16, 2026.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
