The Case: Willenberg v. Superior Court
The Willenberg case is an excellent example of how broad the assumption of the risk defense is when applied to veterinarians. In the case, a veterinarian was treating a dog when the dog unexpectedly jumped on the unsuspecting veterinarian. In an effort to remove the large dog the veterinarian injured her shoulder. One defining fact of this case is that the dog did not bite, but only jumped. Whereas other cases have held that veterinarians assume the risk of being bitten by a dog in the course of treatment, Willenberg granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff-veterinarian assumed the risk of a normally docile animal acting unpredictably in the course of treatment, which is an inherent risk in the veterinary profession. Accordingly, veterinarians do not just assume the risk of a dog bite; they assume the risk of “unpredictable behavior” in a normally docile animal.
As a final note, it is important to read the footnote of the case:
[1] Of course, a dog owner would not be shielded from liability if he knew that the dog has a propensity toward vicious behavior and concealed this from the veterinarian. (See Nelson v. Hall, supra, 165 Cal. App.3d at p. 715, fn. 4.)
In Willenberg the dog was normally docile. Had the dog owners known of the dog’s propensity toward vicious behavior they would not have been successful in arguing that the veterinarian assumed the risk of the large dog jumping on her repeatedly.