On Dec. 18, 2008, plaintiff Elaine Christian, 61, a retired ophthalmologist, was walking in Laguna Hills when she was attacked by three mastiffs that had escaped from the yard of their owners, Leslie Rodriguez and Tyler Paulsen. Christian sustained fractures to her left arm and right wrist, as well as bite marks, causing her to be treated for a lengthy period of time. The Rodriguez/Paulsen dogs were euthanized immediately after the attack. Rodriguez and Paulsen also agreed to settle with Christian after it was learned that a neighbor of Rodriguez and Paulsen’s was bitten by one of the dogs just before they attacked Christian. Thus, Christian sued the county of Orange, the Orange County Animal Care Services, and the city of Laguna Hills. Christian alleged that the county, operating as the Orange County Animal Care Services, was negligent in its investigation of the earlier incident involving the Rodriguez/Paulson dogs. Christian alleged that had the investigation been properly conducted, precautions would have been taken that would have prevented her attack. In addition, Christian alleged that the defendants were negligent per se. Prior to the trial in March 2011, the city of Laguna Hills was dismissed from the lawsuit, and the remaining defendants’ counsel filed briefs on the issue of discretionary immunity. After argument, the trial court treated the county’s brief as a motion to dismiss, and granted it as a matter of law. As a result, judgment was entered in favor of the county, and Christian timely appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment, and the matter was sent back to the trial court to be re-tried. During the re-trial, plaintiff’s counsel contended that an investigation after the attack on Christian found that the county had learned of the other incident involving two of the Rodriguez/Paulsen dogs, which occurred in March 26, 2008. Counsel contended that during that incident, the victim, Guy Horton, tried to break up a fight between his dog and one of the Rodriguez/Paulsen dogs at the Newport Beach River Jetty, where there were signs posted that dogs must be on leash at all times. However, Horton’s dog was not on a leash at the time of the dog fight, and Horton claimed that two of the Rodriguez/Paulsen dogs ran up and attacked his dog, unprovoked. Horton suffered two puncture wounds to his right ring finger. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the animal control officer who interviewed Rodriguez and Paulsen regarding the Horton incident ultimately decided the Rodriguez/Paulsen dogs were not vicious or potentially dangerous, and did not provide his findings to the administrative lieutenant of the Orange County Animal Care Services unit. Thus, over the objections of the county’s counsel, plaintiff’s counsel was permitted to argue that the county violated its own policy regarding conducting a dangerous dog investigation. Plaintiff’ counsel argued that the county also learned, during its investigation after the attack on Christian, that the Rodriguez/Paulsen dogs had escaped their yard on several occasions during the previous months and that a neighbor had reported that one of the dogs had entered her garage, causing her to climb on the hood of her car because she was scared. In addition, counsel contended that the investigation revealed that, on another occasion, one of the Rodriguez/Paulsen dogs jumped over the fence of a neighbor’s yard, frightening the neighbor’s children. Plaintiff’s counsel contended the Laguna Animal Control Services had records of all of the incidents, but that nothing was done about the problem. Thus, counsel contended that the dogs continued to disturb the community and ultimately resulted in Christian’s . Plaintiff’s counsel argued that had the county conducted an earlier investigation in compliance with its own policies and canvassed the neighborhood, seeking information from residents about these dogs, the county would have determined that the 95- to 130-pound dogs had repeatedly escaped from the confines of the owners’ backyard, roamed unrestrained, and terrorized the neighborhood. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that during an earlier investigation, the county would have also assessed the security of the areas where the dogs were confined and would have required mandatory padlocking of all gates to prevent access to, or accidental escape by, the dogs. Defense counsel attempted to argue that the animal care officer had discretion to determine if the Horton incident was a provoked or unprovoked attack and that the officer determined the incident was a provoked attack that did not rise to the level of consideration of a potentially dangerous dog investigation. According to defense counsel, during the investigation of the Horton incident, Paulsen claimed that, in opposition to what Horton alleged, Horton’s dog ran at the Rodriguez/Paulsen dogs and that one of the Rodriguez/Paulsen dogs broke its leash and began fighting with Horton’s dog. Paulsen also claimed that Horton hit both dogs to break up the fight, and that it was not clear which dog actually bit Horton. However, defense counsel noted that because of the Appellate Court ruling on the matter, and over the objections of the county’ counsel, defense counsel was precluded from offering any evidence of the animal control officer’s judgment and discretion in determining if the Horton incident consisted of a provoked or unprovoked attack, which is the main factor in deciding if the report should be turned in to the Operations Desk for consideration of further investigation. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the “law of the case,” based upon the Appellate Court opinion, was that the officer had no discretion with respect to determining if the attack was provoked or not. The trial court ultimately agreed with plaintiff’s counsel’s interpretation of the Appellate Court opinion, and precluded the defense from offering any evidence of judgment or discretion on the part of the officer. Thus, at trial, the county’s counsel argued that the evidence showed that the county did not have knowledge of the prior incidents until after the attack on Christian, as none of the neighbors had ever contacted the county or any public agency to report any issues with the dogs. Counsel for the Orange County Animal Care Services argued that the dog owners were solely responsible for the vicious mauling of Christian. Counsel also argued that the animal care services was not negligent and that it had complied with its policies and procedures with regard to its investigation of the prior incident involving the subject dogs., As a result of being attacked by three bull mastiffs, weighing between 95 to 130 pounds each, Christian sustained open fractures of her left humerus and right wrist, puncture wounds to her flank, and 36 lacerations totaling more than two feet in length. Christian was subsequently taken by ambulance to Mission Hospital, in Mission Viejo, where she was hospitalized for a week. During that time, she underwent emergency surgery, including a complex repair of multiple arm, leg, and trunk lacerations; open treatment of her right wrist’s ulna fracture with plate fixation; and open treatment of her left distal humerus supracondylar fracture. In total, Christian required eight hours of surgery to stop the bleeding, close wounds, and repair some of the tissue damage. The resulted in extensive scarring on both Christian’s upper and lower extremities. Over the next two years, she underwent numerous scar revision treatments, including abdominal fat grafting to the right forearm and excision of the right ulnar forearm. She also claimed that the attack caused her to develop post-traumatic stress disorder, which impacted her ability to leave her home and to travel. Thus, Christian sought recover of future medical expenses and non-economic damages for her physical pain, disfigurement, and emotional distress.