In a recent development, Chris Brown has achieved a minor triumph in an ongoing lawsuit concerning a dog attack. However, it is crucial to note that Brown should not prematurely declare triumph.
According to court documents acquired by RadarOnline, Brown’s legal representatives sought an extension for the trial date of a pending lawsuit. They requested a postponement from September 2023 to December 2023, arguing that the plaintiff, a housekeeper, would not be adversely affected by the delay. Additionally, Brown’s legal team explained that the injured housekeeper is presently undergoing treatment for her injuries under worker’s compensation claims. Consequently, crucial evidence required to proceed with the trial is currently unavailable.
The motion was granted by the presiding judge, although RadarOnline did not disclose the plaintiff’s identity. A previous report from PEOPLE identified the plaintiff as Patricia Avila, Chris Brown’s former housekeeper. Avila claimed that one of Brown’s two dogs attacked her sister, Maria, while they were attending to the singer’s residence in 2020.
Reportedly, the Caucasian ovcharka, the dog in question, growled at Maria and subsequently launched a vicious attack when she entered the backyard to dispose of the vacuum. Patricia rushed outside upon hearing the commotion and discovered her sister covered in blood, desperately seeking assistance. Brown personally dialed 911, and Patricia described Maria’s injuries, which included bites on her leg, missing skin from her arm, and wounds around her eye. The severity of the injuries required Maria to spend several days in the hospital and undergo two surgeries.
This particular dog breed can weigh between 110 and 200 lbs and had previously been kept in a section of the property that the housekeepers did not frequent. Patricia’s lawsuit claims that she has endured severe emotional distress, including post-traumatic stress disorder, severe anxiety, depression, and panic attacks. Consequently, she feels reluctant to leave her home and continuously relives the pain of witnessing her sister suffer during the traumatic incident.
While Chris Brown argues that the housekeepers provoked the dog before the attack, it is important to note that California follows a “strict liability” principle. According to Forbes, this means that the owner is accountable for all dog bites that occur on public property or private property where the victim had authorization to be present.
However, trespassers or unauthorized visitors are not protected by the strict liability rule. It is worth mentioning that a valid defense against the strict liability rule is if the victim provoked the dog and bears full or partial responsibility for the incident, which Brown claims as his defense strategy.