Penal Code § 399 PC - Failure to Control a Dangerous Dog or Animal

California Penal Code § 399 PC makes it a criminal offense to fail to exercise proper control over a dangerous animal when it causes serious injury or death to another person. While the law aims to promote public safety, many animal owners face charges even when they acted responsibly or the incident was beyond their control.

At Grace Legal Group, our experienced Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys understand how emotionally charged these cases can be. We believe that not every animal attack is a crime — and we’re here to defend your rights, your freedom, and your reputation.

Understanding Penal Code § 399 PC

To be convicted under Penal Code 399, prosecutors must prove the following elements:

1. You owned, kept, or controlled a dangerous animal.

2. You knew or should have known the animal was dangerous.

3. You failed to use ordinary care in restraining or controlling it.

4. The animal’s actions caused serious bodily injury or death to another person.

If the prosecution cannot prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you cannot be convicted. Below are the most effective legal defenses used to challenge these charges.

1. You Were Not the Animal’s Owner or Controller

One of the strongest defenses is showing that you did not own, possess, or have control over the animal.
If the animal belonged to someone else and you were not legally responsible for it, you cannot be held liable under PC 399.

Example:
You were temporarily visiting a friend’s home when their aggressive dog escaped and bit a neighbor. Since you had no ownership or control, you cannot be found guilty.

2. The Animal Was Not Dangerous

To convict under Penal Code 399, the prosecution must prove that the animal was dangerous or mischievous — meaning it had shown vicious tendencies or a pattern of aggression.

If your pet or livestock had no history of attacking or harming others, your attorney can argue that the animal was not inherently dangerous. This is especially relevant in first-time incidents where an otherwise docile animal unexpectedly reacts to fear or provocation.

3. You Did Not Know the Animal Was Dangerous

A conviction requires proof that you knew or had reason to know your animal posed a threat.
If the attack was completely unexpected and there was no prior behavior suggesting danger, you cannot be criminally liable.

Example:
If your dog had never bitten or acted aggressively before, a single unpredictable incident would not qualify as a crime under PC 399, because you had no knowledge of danger.

4. You Exercised Ordinary Care

California law requires animal owners to use “ordinary care”—that is, reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm.
If you can show that you used proper restraint methods, such as leashes, fences, or locked enclosures, and the attack occurred despite your caution, you can challenge the charge successfully.

Example:
A wild animal escapes from a reinforced enclosure during an earthquake. Even though harm occurs, you may not be guilty since you took reasonable care under normal circumstances.

5. The Victim Ignored Warnings or Acted Negligently

If the injured person provoked the animal, trespassed, or ignored posted warnings, it may reduce or eliminate your liability under Penal Code § 399 PC.
The law acknowledges that owners cannot be blamed for injuries caused by a victim’s reckless or unlawful actions.

However, this defense does not apply if the victim:

• Was under the age of 5, or

• Was otherwise unable to take reasonable precautions.

Example:
A trespasser jumps a fence marked “Beware of Dog” and gets bitten. Because the victim ignored clear warnings and unlawfully entered private property, you would likely not be held criminally responsible.

6. The Incident Was an Unavoidable Accident

Sometimes, tragic events occur without negligence. An owner may have taken all reasonable measures, yet an animal behaves unpredictably due to external factors like loud noises, medical conditions, or sudden fear.

If your attorney can demonstrate that the attack was unintentional and unforeseeable, prosecutors may not be able to prove you acted without ordinary care.

7. The Animal Was Provoked or Defending Itself

If the animal reacted to threats, harm, or provocation, your attorney can argue that it acted in self-defense or in defense of its owner. California law recognizes that even well-trained animals can respond aggressively when threatened.

Example:
A passerby hits your dog with a stick, and the dog bites back. Because the animal was provoked, you may have a valid defense.

8. Police or Prosecutorial Misconduct

If law enforcement or prosecutors violated your constitutional rights, evidence can be challenged or dismissed.
Examples of misconduct include:

• Illegal searches or seizures

• Coerced statements or confessions

• False or exaggerated police reports

• Mishandling or misrepresenting evidence

Your defense attorney can file motions to suppress improperly obtained evidence, weakening the prosecution’s case significantly.

9. Insufficient Evidence

In some cases, prosecutors rely heavily on witness statements or assumptions rather than concrete proof. If there are inconsistencies in reports, conflicting testimony, or missing evidence about your control over the animal, your defense team can argue reasonable doubt—the standard required for acquittal.

10. The Animal Was Lawfully Contained or Exhibited

If the animal was kept as part of a licensed zoo, sanctuary, or lawful exhibition, you may be exempt from prosecution under PC 399(d). This section of the law recognizes legitimate, regulated animal handling as distinct from negligent ownership.