Safety issues and off-leash dog area

Dog attacks are the most serious potential problem and there is always a great deal of interest in the issue.

• Though attacks can occur against humans, other dogs, and other animals, most dogs don't bite people or other dogs (Domestic Dog, 1995; Canine Behavior, 1965).
• Dog attacks are more likely to occur in the dog owner's home or immediate vicinity than they are in public open space. In one study of aggression in dogs it was found that from 65% to 93% of dog attacks occurred in or near the dog owner's home (Poderbercek & Blackshaw, 1990).
• According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (January 22, 1997), the vast majority of dog bites occur on a dog's territory. When dogs bite people who are off the dog's property, it is usually the result of a lack of supervision or ignorance on the part of the owner. Attacks that occur on private property typically happen when a dominant, protective, or injured dog is not adequately supervised. These triggers are not present when a dog is in the neutral territory of a public park.

Without wanting to underrate the seriousness of dog attacks in either the private home or public open space, they need to be kept in perspective.

The City is legitimately concerned that legalizing the use of public property for off-leash recreation creates the risk of public liability. The experience of other municipalities indicates, however, that the risk is minimal. For example, the Point Isabel Regional Shoreline is a 21 acre, off-leash park located at the border of the cities of Berkeley and Richmond, California. According to the park supervisor, the park averages 730,000 dog visitors each year. The attorney for the East Bay Regional Park District reports that the district has had no claims and has not been named in any litigation regarding dogs during the seven years he has been attorney for the agency.

Laguna Beach, California has had off-leash areas for over two years with no claims. The Sepulveda Dam Basin, which is the largest off-leash area in Los Angeles, also reports no claims or litigation over dog incidents.

At least one reason for the lack of claims is legal: the "dangerous condition" immunity from public liability probably relieves the public agency of liability, especially for the acts of third parties using the public property (Gov't. Code section 830 et. seq.; Jones v. Czapkay (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 192).

Nevertheless, the City should take precautions to protect itself (and the taxpayers) from potential liability. There are several ways to limit liability, including:

1. Express assumption of liability and indemnification by users of the off-leash areas

   This can be accomplished by conditioning the issuance of dog licenses on an express indemnification agreement, or by a "permissive use" ordinance change. The city of Claremont, California chose the latter approach. Its off-leash ordinance states in part:

   "The use of an off-leash area by a dog owner or other person having care, custody, or control of that shall constitute agreement by the dog owner and the person having care, custody, or control of that dog to... a waiver of liability of the city, and his or her agreement to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the city from any claim, injury, or damage arising from or in connection with such use." (City of Claremont Ordinance 11.02.125(E).)

2. Signage

   Full and complete signage, both advising visitors that the park is an off-leash area and that they use the area at their own risk, and advising dog owners of their assumption of liability and hold harmless agreement.

3. Insurance

   Purchase a commercial insurance policy specifically protecting the City from dog-related claims.