This action involved a tragic incident wherein Plaintiff sustained severe scarring to
her arm as a result of a vicious attach by Defendant’s dog.

On July 19, 2004, while Plaintiff was walking at the La Cienega Park with her
friends, Defendant’s dog, a rottweiler named chase, suddenly without any warning,
attacked Plaintiff and bit her right arm. “Chase” did not simply bite and let go of Plaintiff’s
arm, but instead, chase locked unto Plaintiff’s arm and pulled her to the ground without let
go until he tore off the flesh off of Plaintiff’s right arm. As a result, Plaintiff had to be
transported to Cedar Sinai Hospital for emergency care.

Prior to the subject incident, Defendant’s dog, bit another person on July 31, 2003.
A lawsuit regarding the prior dog bite incident was also litigated and was successful.
Furthermore, based on information and belief, Chase bit Defendant’s own child as well.

March 7, 2004.
At Cedar Sinai Hospital the wound was treated and Plaintiff was given pain
medication, Motrin, Vicodin and Augmentin to relieve the pain. Plaintiff was also
prescribed a Carter pillow to help elevate her arm.

On July 20, 2004, Plaintiff was referred by Cedar Sinai Hospital to a plastic surgeon
for consultation. Examination revealed a 12cm laceration extending over the dorsal
surface of the proximal forearm. Also, a creation of a flap of tissue extending
approximately 5-8 cm distally was noted. The area of scarring was noted to be 12cm long
and 8cm wide. The plastic surgeon diagnosed the wound to be complex with multiple
areas of devitalized tissue and noted that even with skin graft coverage, Plaintiff would
have scar formation even with the best surgical technique.

Despite the skin graft surgical procedure, Plaintiff ended up having a permanent
scar on her right arm. The scar to Plaintiff’s arm not only affected her emotionally but the
scarring was traumatizing to her family and newly wed husband. Plaintiff would find herself
thinking about the way the scar looked on her arm and felt less attractive because of the
scarring. The scars also affected Plaintiff’s ability to enjoy her daily life activities. Plaintiff
was required to avoid sun exposure and such restriction took away a lot of pleasures out
of her life because Plaintiff had to mak sure that she wore clothing to cover her scar.
Plaintiff also experienced difficulty in engaging in simple daily life activities such as
eating, brushing her teeth, blowing her nose, laughing as well as other related activities for
a period of time until the scar tissues from the bite healed.

LIABILITY
"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 owners of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's
knowledge of such viciousness." (C.C. 3342(a); see Hicks v. Sullivan (1932) 122 C.A. 635,
639; DeLay v. Braun (1944) 63 C.A.2d 8, 10; Ellsworth v. Elite Dry Cleaners, Dyers &
Laundry (1954) 127 C.A.2d 479, 483 [sufficiency of evidence of ownership of dog]; Davis
v. Gaschler (1992) 11 C.A.4th 1392, 1399 [C.C. 3342 imposes liability on owner regardless
of whether dog is running loose or restrained, or is on or off owner's premises]; Drake v.
Dean (1993) 15 C.A.4th 915, 19 C.R.2d 325; Johnson v. McMahan (1998) 68 C.A.4th 173,
175, [plaintiff who pleaded that he was injured in falling from ladder after dog had grasped
his leg alleged "bite" under C.C. 3342, even though skin was not broken and no wound
inflicted].

The court in People v. Henderson, (1999) 76 Cal. App.4th 453, 470, allowed expert
evidence to establish that as a breed, pit bulls are capable of inflicting great bodily injury
or death due to their tremendous biting power and a tendency to lock onto their victim
without letting go. The expert also testified that untrained dogs pose a greater risk of harm
to outsiders. Id

The appellant in People v. Henderson argued that the expert's testimony was
insufficient to show that the particular dogs in question were capable of inflicting great
bodily injury or death. Id. The court held that appellant was mistaken since the expert's
testimony referenced pit bulls as a breed. Id. The court found that the subject pit bulls at
Defendant’s address fell within that group. Id. The court held that what was lacking was
any evidence to show that the dogs in question were somehow distinct from their breed
and therefore they should be excluded from that generalization. Id. The court found that
indeed, other evidence showed that the subject particular dogs were ready and willing to
attack. Id.