Court Opinion

ID: 9855748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:30:19.405368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:58.333124
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.—I dissent.
I find nothing in the record to support the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff assumed the risk. As the majority correctly points out, one of the elements of the defense of assumption of risk is knowledge of the danger involved. This element is clearly absent in this case.
The majority has held that “the risk was obvious.” The sole predicate for its position is that “the dog had followed plaintiff along the fence for 50 feet, barking all the way.” To hold that this single piece of evidence is sufficient to show that the plaintiff had knowledge of the danger is unrealistic and erroneous.
One does not have to be an expert on dogs to know that a dog that barks is not necessarily vicious or dangerous. When a dog barks and runs alongside of a passer-by, more often than not it is only being playful and seeking attention. Action of this sort by a dog, barring other circumstances, is not a sufficient basis from which to draw an inference that the passer-by *422has actual knowledge that the dog might bite. It is so common and harmless as to not alarm him at all.
There are additional facts which vitiate such an inference. The dog was a small dog about a foot high and was not one of the breeds known to be either vicious by nature or normally thought to be vicious or dangerous. Throughout the trial, in fact, defendant’s counsel, apparently attempting to underplay the fact that the dog bit the plaintiff, referred to it as “the little dog.” Also, no signs had been posted warning of the dog. As has been pointed out above, the only evidence upon which the finding of actual knowledge is based is that the dog barked at the plaintiff. Under all the circumstances, this is not sufficient.
The finding of the trial court that the plaintiff was negligent in entering defendant’s premises is similarly erroneous. The record is devoid of evidence indicating that the plaintiff was negligent in any way. However, even if there was such evidence, it appears that ordinary contributory negligence is not a defense to liability under Civil Code, section 3342. (See Smythe v. Schacht, 93 Cal.App.2d 315, 322 [209 P.2d 114].)
The third finding that the trial court made a basis for denial of recovery was that the plaintiff was not a business visitor or invitee on the premises. This also appears to be incorrect.
Salesmen are considered invitees when they come to a place which they have good reason to believe is open for possible dealings with them. (Prosser, Law of Torts, p. 457.) In this case the plaintiff was selling products which he could reasonably believe would be useful to the defendant, and in which she would be interested. Moreover, defendant had not posted signs indicating that peddlers and salesmen were unwelcome. In light of these facts, the plaintiff was justified in believing that defendant’s premises were open to him. “Every man, by implication invites others to come to his house as they may have proper occasion either of business or courtesy or information, etc.” (Duval v. Rowell, 124 Cal.App.2d Supp. 897, 901 [269 P.2d 249]; DeLay v. Braun, 63 Cal.App.2d 8, 10 [146 P.2d 32] ; Cambou v. Marty, 98 -Cal.App. 598, 601 [277 P. 365].) It seems clear that the plaintiff was lawfully on the. defendant’s premises.
I would reverse the judgment.
Schauer, J., and McComb, J., concurred.