On Jan. 2, 2012, plaintiff Jennifer Campbell, an unemployed woman in her 40s, and her neighbor, plaintiff Mary Fencl, a police officer in her 40s, saw a stray dog attack a stray cat on the side patio of Campbell’s property in Agoura Hills. Campbell and Fencl subsequently attempted to release the cat from the dog’s bite by beating the dog and by Fencl administering a choke hold. However, when the hold did not work, Fencl wedged her fingers, fists and forearm into the dog’s mouth to dislodge the cat. As a result, Fencl sustained to her left arm. Campbell claimed she had also been bit by the dog, leaving a scratch on her arm, and suffered hand from beating the dog in her attempt to release the cat. She also claimed emotional distress from witnessing the incident. Campbell and Fencl sued the dog’s foster parent for about one week, Anthony Runfola; the non-profit rescue organization, Molly’s Mutts and Meows; and the owner of Molly’s Mutts and Meows, Molly Wootton. Campbell and Fencl alleged the defendants were generally negligent and strictly liable for the incident, in violation of the Civil Code and common law. The common-law-liability claim was ultimately dropped prior to trial. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that, for strict liability purposes, the defendants were the owners of the dog. Counsel also contended that the dog escape from Runfola’s property by prying open a screen door by the spline. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the defendants were negligent in allowing the dog to escape from Runfola’s property, resulting in the incident. Defense counsel contended that none of the defendants were the owners of the dog, but were simply the caretakers. Counsel also contended that Wootton had no personal liability, as she had never even met the dog. In addition, defense counsel contended that both Campbell and Fencl assumed the risk by creating the danger, escalating the situation and voluntarily placing their limbs in the dog’s mouth. Judge Randy Rhodes denied the assumption-of-risk claim as a complete defense and, instead, incorporated it into a comparative fault apportionment., After the incident, Fencl and Campbell went to a hospital, but only Fencl received treatment at that time. Although Campbell followed Fencl to the hospital, she did not get checked out. Fencl claimed she suffered bite marks on her left, non-dominant arm, causing nerve problems, soreness and grip strength problems. She underwent minor treatment, and saw an orthopedist and cosmetic surgeon to contemplate any treatment to address the scars on her left arm. According to the plaintiff’s expert plastic and reconstructive hand and wrist surgeon, Fencl may need future treatment to reduce scarring. Campbell claimed she suffered a scratch on her arm as a result of being bit by the dog. She also claimed she suffered hand from beating the dog in her attempt to release the cat. Although, she did not initially seek treatment for the alleged physical at the hospital, she later sought treatment for her hand . Thus, she sought recovery of past medical expenses for her hand treatment. Campbell also claimed she suffered emotional distress as a result of witnessing the incident, requiring her to undergo counseling for over a year. Campbell’s treating psychologist testified that she clinically diagnosed Campbell with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident. Defense counsel noted that Fencl admitted that her were to her “non-gun arm,” as well as admitted that she had prior unrelated work . Thus, defense counsel argued that a substantial portion of Fencl’s alleged loss of wages was due to the prior unrelated work .