Columbus Day today. Nothing from the Ninth Circuit today or Friday. Nothing from the California Court of Appeal today, and only one published opinion on Friday. Tough to do a blog on days the courts aren't publishing much. I guess everyone was preoccupied with the Kavanaugh fight. One that's over now. So I expect to see a lot from the judiciary in California tomorrow. Right?
Meanwhile, the single opinion published on Friday is an unusual fact pattern. More accurately, it's a very common fact pattern. But unusual that it gives rise to a lawsuit.
It's about a dog. Not a dog bite; that'd be too easy. But a dog -- a guard dog, in this case -- that barks at pedestrians and (allegedly) sometimes runs out of hassles them.
That presumably happens a lot. Doesn't typically lead to a lawsuit. More typically thought of as something merely rude and inconsiderate.
But in this case, not only does the dog hassle pedestrians, but it hassles one particular pedestrian -- a blind pedestrian -- as well as that pedestrian's guide dog. So he sues. Claiming a violation of the California Disabled Person's Act. Which expressly says that blind people have the same rights as everyone else to use sidewalks etc.
The trial court thought there wasn't a violation because the dog admittedly hassled everyone, the blind and non-blind alike. But the Court of Appeal reverses. Justice Kim goes through the words of the statute and says that the plaintiff's claim properly asserts that he was denied the "enjoyment" of the sidewalk because his guide dog was hassled and distracted. End of story.
