Charles Lyles vs. Robert Gordon Rasmussen, Jr.

Case Background

On February 23, 2022, Plaintiff  Charles Lyles filed a Dog bite Lawsuit lawsuit in the California State, Butte County, Superior Court (Case number: 22CV00380). Judges Michael P Candela, Stephen E Benson, and Tamara L. Mosbarger presided over the case.

Cause

On March 11, 2020, Charles Lyles delivered a package to 2430 Tom Polk Ave in Chico, California. As Lyles approached the property, Robert Gordon Rasmussen Jr.’s unleashed dog viciously attacked and bit him. Rasmussen owned the dog. The incident occurred while Lyles was lawfully on the property to deliver the package.

Injuries

The complaint did not specify Lyles’ exact injuries from the dog bite but indicated that he suffered damages, likely including physical injuries requiring medical treatmen

Damages

Lyles incurred multiple damages from the attack, including wage loss, suggesting he was unable to work for some time. He also faced hospital and medical expenses related to his injuries. The complaint mentioned general damages, which typically include pain and suffering. Additionally, Lyles claimed a loss of earning capacity, indicating that his injuries might have long-term effects on his ability to work.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Charles Lyles
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: David Z. Woolf, Esq.
  • Defendant(s):Robert Gordon Rasmussen, Jr.
    • Counsel for Defendants: Abigail Taylor Anderson

Claims

Lyles filed a complaint for general negligence against Rasmussen. He alleged that Rasmussen’s negligence in failing to restrain or control the dog was the legal and proximate cause of his damages. The complaint also referenced California Civil Code Section 3342. This section imposes strict liability on dog owners for injuries caused by dog bites. Based on this statute, Lyles claimed Rasmussen was strictly liable for all injuries and damages, regardless of the dog’s past behavior or the owner’s knowledge of its viciousness.

Defense

Robert Gordon Rasmussen Jr. responded to Lyles’ complaint by denying all allegations, claiming that Lyles was not, and would not be, damaged to the extent alleged. Rasmussen raised several affirmative defenses, asserting that Lyles’ own negligence contributed to the incident and that any recovery should be reduced by the percentage of his contributory negligence. Rasmussen also argued that Lyles failed to mitigate his damages.

Additionally, he claimed that other unnamed parties may have contributed to Lyles’ damages and that he should only be liable for his portion under California’s comparative fault laws. He further asserted that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. Rasmussen suggested that Lyles’ recovery should be limited to economic damages if he was uninsured or driving under the influence at the time. He also argued that the complaint did not state enough facts to constitute a cause of action. Finally, he requested that the court award him costs and any other appropriate relief.

Jury Verdict

On March 6, 2024, the jury awarded Lyles $60,000 in damages.  $50,000 in past non-economic damages and $10,000 for future non-economic damages in a Dog bite Lawsuit.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request