Quantcast

Plaintiffs Allege Negligence Against Dog Owners Following Vicious Attack

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Plaintiffs Allege Negligence Against Dog Owners Following Vicious Attack

State Court
5ffe1017 5064 40a5 9852 a90d8b56306e

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

A harrowing dog attack has led to a legal battle in Santa Clara County, as two plaintiffs seek justice for the injuries they sustained. The complaint was filed by Wilshire Law Firm on September 12, 2024, against Briana De La Cerda, Naomi Ngo, Narasinha LLC, and Pranav Dharwadkar.

According to the complaint, on July 18, 2023, Jackelinne Sanchez-Rivera and minor Perla Ruano were walking in the hallway leading to their apartment at 656 S 7th Street in San Jose when three large dogs belonging to the defendants suddenly attacked them. The plaintiffs allege that the door of Unit B was slightly open when the dogs exited and viciously attacked without any warning or provocation. This incident left both plaintiffs with severe injuries.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants had exclusive control over maintaining the property where the attack occurred and failed to exercise ordinary care in securing their dogs. "Defendants failed to secure the dogs, including but not limited to leashing or confining them," states the complaint. As a result of this negligence, Sanchez-Rivera and Ruano suffered significant physical harm and emotional distress.

The lawsuit outlines three causes of action: negligence, statutory liability under California's dog bite statute (Civil Code §3342), and strict liability. Each cause of action emphasizes different aspects of responsibility on part of the defendants. For instance, under negligence, it is argued that the defendants breached their duty by allowing an unsafe condition—the presence of unrestrained dogs—on their property. Under statutory liability, it is claimed that since the attack occurred in a public or lawfully private place within California’s jurisdiction, the defendants are liable for damages caused by their dogs.

The plaintiffs are seeking various forms of relief from the court. They demand non-economic damages for pain and suffering as well as economic damages for medical expenses incurred due to their injuries. Additionally, they request compensation for future medical costs and loss of earnings capacity resulting from this traumatic event.

Representing Sanchez-Rivera and Ruano is attorney Rene E. Ucros from Wilshire Law Firm. The case has been assigned Case No.: 24CV447088 and will be overseen by Judge P. Hernandez at Superior Court of CA in Santa Clara County.

More News