Teen’s Life Forever Changed After Vicious Dog Pack Attack Raises Complex Legal Questions in California

In Tracy’s case, investigators seized sixteen dogs from a nearby property, and authorities confirmed these animals were neither fenced nor leashed at the time of the attack. This fundamental failure to properly restrain the animals creates a clear foundation for liability against the property owners.

The doctrine of strict liability means Tracy’s legal team won’t need to prove negligence in the traditional sense. Instead, they must establish that the dogs belonged to the defendants and that the attack occurred in a public place or while Tracy was lawfully present where the incident happened.

Rental Property Complications and Insurance Coverage

If the dog owners were renting the property where the animals were kept, additional layers of liability may emerge. Homeowner’s insurance policies typically include liability coverage that extends to tenants, but coverage can become complicated when dangerous animals are involved.

Many insurance policies contain specific exclusions for certain dog breeds or impose restrictions on coverage when multiple animals are present. Given that sixteen dogs were involved in this case, insurance companies may attempt to deny coverage based on policy limitations or argue that the sheer number of animals constitutes an excluded activity.