Quantcast

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Sunday, October 6, 2024

Plaintiff alleges County Negligence Led to Brutal Dog Attack

State Court
5ffe1017 5064 40a5 9852 a90d8b56306e

hammer and American flag | https://unsplash.com/

A California woman is seeking justice after a brutal dog attack left her with life-altering injuries. Candis Danielson filed a complaint against the County of Humboldt on June 26, 2024, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District. The case revolves around Danielson's assertion that the county failed to enforce mandatory duties concerning dangerous and unvaccinated dogs, leading to her severe injuries.

The incident occurred on January 28, 2021, when Danielson was attacked by two pit bulls named Sissy and Huss while on Donald Mehrtens’s rented property in Humboldt County. The attack resulted in Danielson losing the lower half of her right leg at the knee, extensive damage to her left leg, and bites on her right hand. She also suffered from wound infections, posttraumatic stress disorder, and emotional distress. Despite Mehrtens surrendering both dogs to Humboldt County before a hearing could be held to determine their status as vicious or dangerous, they were euthanized on February 9, 2021. A subsequent hearing declared them vicious dogs and barred Mehrtens from owning dogs for three years.

Danielson's first amended complaint includes causes of action for negligence and statutory liability against Mehrtens; negligence and premises liability against various property owners; and failure to perform a mandatory duty against Humboldt County under Government Code section 815.6. She alleges that the county had prior knowledge of Mehrtens’s history with aggressive dogs dating back to November 2010 but failed to take necessary actions such as holding hearings or impounding unvaccinated dogs. For instance, in June 2011, two of Mehrtens’s pit bulls attacked another dog twice within days but were returned to him pending a hearing which never took place.

Danielson argues that these failures directly led to her injuries. She contends that if the county had enforced its own regulations regarding potentially dangerous dogs and unvaccinated animals as mandated by state law and local ordinances, Sissy would have been impounded or euthanized long before she was attacked. Specifically, she points out failures such as not holding a hearing after Sissy bit a neighbor in June 2020 or not impounding Sissy for being unlicensed and unvaccinated.

However, the trial court sustained Humboldt County's demurrer without leave to amend, stating that the duties identified by Danielson were not mandatory within the meaning of Government Code section 815.6. The court found that even if there was an obligation to hold a potentially dangerous dog hearing under local ordinance, it was speculative whether such a hearing would have resulted in Sissy's destruction or quarantine.

Danielson is seeking relief from the appellate court by arguing that the trial court erred in its judgment. She maintains that Humboldt County had clear mandatory duties under both state law and local ordinances designed to protect individuals from attacks by dangerous or vicious dogs like Sissy and Huss.

Representing Danielson are attorneys Steven B. Stevens from his professional corporation along with Conal F. Doyle and Zachary Zwerdling. The defense team for Humboldt County includes Nicholas R. Kloeppel and Karen J. Roebuck from The Mitchell Law Firm LLP. The case is presided over by Judge Timothy A. Canning under Case ID A166787.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News