What is the current state of the law on liability for a veterinarian who is injured by a client's dog?

9 In recent years, some appellate courts have applied a "firefighter's rule" type rationale to veterinarians who attempted to sue dog owners when they were bitten by the animals they were treating. (See, e.g., Nelson v. Hall (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 709, 211 Cal.Rptr. 668.) While a unique confluence of policy considerations may justify a narrow exclusion from liability for dog owners who seek help from veterinarians, the existence of this "veterinarian's rule" exception provides no precedent for extending the "primary assumption of the risk" defense to the customer's and clients of other independent contractors/employees. A list of a few of these many factors suggests how special a case veterinarians represent. Veterinarians are licensed medical professionals. They are specialists in animal behavior as well as disease. And in all the appellate cases considered thus far, at least, veterinarians have been treating the offending dogs on their own premises where they have complete knowledge and control of the environment and the protective measures to be taken. They can muzzle any and all dogs while handling or treating them. They can administer appropriate medications to pacify the animals. It is the dog rather than the owner whose acts cause the injury. Indeed the dog seldom, if ever, bites the veterinarian as a result of something the owner did. Indeed the owner is compelled to surrender control of the dog to the veterinarian during treatment. It also is easier for the veterinarian to obtain insurance against the possibility a dog who is a patient will bite the veterinarian than for dog owners to purchase insurance against the risk their dogs biting the veterinarian who is treating them.