Scribd
Upload
8 views3 pages

Affirmative Defenses in Dog Bite Cases

The document analyzes potential affirmative defenses for Alex in a veterinarian case and limits on requests for admissions. It finds that under the assumption of risk doctrine, Alex will likely be able to defend themselves using precedent that veterinarians assume the risk of being bitten by animals. It also notes that the standard limit is 35 requests for admissions per party, but genuineness of documents is unlimited, and additional requests require a declaration of necessity due to case complexity.

Uploaded by

Erix04
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views3 pages

Affirmative Defenses in Dog Bite Cases

The document analyzes potential affirmative defenses for Alex in a veterinarian case and limits on requests for admissions. It finds that under the assumption of risk doctrine, Alex will likely be able to defend themselves using precedent that veterinarians assume the risk of being bitten by animals. It also notes that the standard limit is 35 requests for admissions per party, but genuineness of documents is unlimited, and additional requests require a declaration of necessity due to case complexity.

Uploaded by

Erix04
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Research Assignment #1

TO: Deirdre Jones; Sarah Korobkin

FROM: Eric Tran

DATE: September 29, 2010

Alex and Rocky Case

Analysis of Affirmative Defenses for Alex

In Nelson v. Hall, the court reasoned that the defendant had an

affirmative defense under the assumption of risk doctrine, and more

specifically, the Dog Bite statute (“veterinarian rule”). Nelson v.

Hall, 165 C.A.3d 709, 211 C.R. 668 (1985). The assumption of risk

doctrine is a defense to strict liability for injuries caused by a

dangerous animal, whereby the defendant is impliedly relieved of any

duty of care because the plaintiff has accepted employment knowing

clearly the risk and dangers of the job. “A veterinarian assistant

cannot be deemed to have unreasonably encountered a risk that is

inherent in his or her job.” Id. at 714. Furthermore, the defendant is

not liable unless he purposefully or negligently conceals a particular

known hazard. Because Nelson’s fact pattern is identical to Alex’s

case, Alex will be able to use the affirmative defense that the

veterinarian assumed the risks of being bitten by a dog when she

agreed to work in a veterinarian office. Therefore, Alex is not

liable.

In Priebe v. Nelson, under similar circumstances as Nelson, the

court also found no liability for the defendant, owner of animal,

under the veterinarian’s rule. The court used the same analysis as in

Nelson v. Hall to argue that the plaintiff, a kennel worker, assumed

the risk of being bitten when she took on the job. Thus, Priebe can be

used as another case that affirms the assumption of risk doctrine as

an affirmative defense for Alex.

1
Research Path

1) Secondary Source

a. 6 B.E., Witkin, SUMMARY OF CALIFORNIA LAW, §1410 (10th


Edition 2010)

- Index Search Order: Animals, dog bite, veterinarian’s


assumption of risk, 6, Torts §1410

2) Primary Sources
a. Nelson v. Hall, 165 C.A.3d 709, 211 C.R. 668 (1985).

b. Priebe v. Nelson, 39 Cal.4th 1112, 140 P.3d 848 (2006).


50 Requests for Admissions (RFAs) Case

Analysis of Limits on RFAs

According to the Civil Procedure Before Trial series on page, the

number of Requests for Admissions (RFA) permitted depends on the type

of admission requested. 2, Weil and Brown, CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE

TRIAL, §1267, 2001. Under section 1269, the “Rule of 35 PLUS” applies

to RFAs other than the genuineness documents. A party has the right to

serve up to 35 requests on each other’s part in one or several sets.

However, one should note that under section 1368, there are no limits

on the number of RFAs related to the genuineness of documents. Under

section 1270 subsection c, if more than 35 RFAs are sought (in our

case 50 is needed), then a “declaration for necessity” for additional

RFAS is required. The declaration must establish that the request for

additional RFAs is justified by the “complexity or quantity of the

existing and potential issues in the case.” Id. at §1270.1.

Research Path

1) 2, Weil and Brown, CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL, §1267-


§1270.1, 2001.

a. Index Search Order: Discover; Request for Admissions;

2
“number of;” Chapter 8; 8G-4; Sections 1267-127.1.

You might also like