Q: Who is responsible for damages for my dog bite?

A: Generally, a landlord is not automatically liable for injuries their tenant's dog causes. However, they can face liability where: (1) they had actual knowledge of the dog's vicious tendencies; meaning they knew the dog was aggressive or had bitten someone before; and (2) they had the ability to prevent foreseeable harm, but failed to do so.

In your situation, it could come down to whether the pit bull had previously caused injuries/was vicious or aggressive AND the grandmother knew about it AND the grandmother had the ability to prevent the harm (I.e., make the dog owner get rid of or relocate the dog; or if the gate was open because it was broken, the landlord would have had a duty to fix the gate the prevent the harm to you and others).

The other issue you may run into is even if the owner of the home is liable, their homeowner's insurance policy may also include a similar breed exclusion.

A: Under California law, dog owners are generally held strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs. This means that the owner of the pit bull mix is primarily responsible for your damages, regardless of the breed exclusion in the renters policy. The fact that the dog was off-leash and attacked you on a public sidewalk strengthens your case against the dog owner.

As for the owner of the house, liability is less clear. Property owners can be held responsible for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on their property, but that typically applies to hazards like unsafe structures or environmental risks. If the grandmother knew about the dog and allowed it to stay on her property, there may be an argument for her responsibility. However, proving liability on her part would likely depend on her level of control over the premises and awareness of the dog's behavior.

You should consider pursuing claims against both the dog owner and potentially the property owner, depending on how much involvement the grandmother had in allowing the dog to stay on her property.