CALCRIM No. 2951

The defendant is charged [in Count] with failing to use ordinary

care in (owning/ [or] controlling) an attack dog [in violation of Penal

Code section 399.5].

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must

prove that:

1. The defendant (owned/ [or] had custody or control of) a dog

trained to fight, attack, or kill;

2. The defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the

dog was vicious or dangerous;

3. The defendant failed to use ordinary care in (owning/ [or]

controlling) the dog;

[AND]

4. As a result of the defendant’s failure to use ordinary care, the

dog (bit someone on two separate occasions/caused substantial

physical injury to <insert name[s] of person[s]

allegedly attacked>)(;/.)

<Give element 5 unless alleged victim not capable of taking precautions;

see Bench Notes.>

[AND

5. <insert name[s] of person[s] allegedly attacked> took

all the precautions that a reasonable person would have taken in

the same situation.]

[If the People have proved that <insert name[s] of person[s]

allegedly attacked> (was/were) (under the age of five years/ [or] incapable

of taking reasonable precautions because <insert reason for

incapacity>), then the People do not need to prove item 5 and you do not

have to find that (he/she/they) took all the precautions that a reasonable

person would have taken in the same situation.]

Using ordinary care means using reasonable care to prevent reasonably

foreseeable harm to someone else. A person fails to use ordinary care if

he or she (does something that a reasonably careful person would not do

in the same situation/ [or] fails to do something that a reasonably careful

person would do in the same situation).

New January 2006