Legal Question in Personal Injury in California

Even on the first bite taken on a human, the owner of a dog is held liable for any bites. I would assume it would also apply to the biting of another animal. Dogs are not vicious unless trained to be so; people own pittbulls because they want an aggressive, violent animal. The boyfriends' liability is clear. He could try to argue there was some comparative negligence on your part by allowing a vicious animal come close to your dog, but then he has to admit the dog was vicious.

You have my sympathy for the loss, but unfortunately, dogs are considered personal property so suing for emotional distress normally is not allowed unless the conduct is extremely bad. The value of the dog might be depreciated [you would get the cost of a 9 year old dog and not a puppy].

The additional question is how do you get your daughter to drop the jerk? Most young women, in matters of romance, do the opposite of what their parents suggest. You need to point out to her that she could have been a victim of the dog instead of your pet and her boyfriend is irresponsible [for $400-$1,000 he is willing to make her family hate him]. Maybe just ask her what she thinks of what he has done--asking her one fact at a time.

Good luck on saving her.

I agree with George however the strict liability statue Cal Civil Code Section 3342 applies to humans only. I disagree with George as to suing for emotional distress for witnessing the attack. Whoever "contemporaneous observed the attack should be for able to recover for emotional distress even though California law treated your beloved pet as a piece of property. The law continues to evolve and given the egregious facts a court might find in your favor.

Sorry to hear of your loss and good luck.