|
3614 REVIEW DENIED A plaintiff who signed a release from potential liability (i.e., pre-incident release, hold-harmless agreement, express assumption of the risk) that was required as a condition for neutering his dog, to which he consented as an alternative to paying a higher impound fee, was not under duress, because his dog was being lawfully detained; a section of the Food and Agriculture Code purporting to provide immunity to participants in a dog-neutering program was enacted by legislative error and was of no effect.CitationTARPY v COUNTY OF SD (Impounded Dog) 110 CA4 267 [See: F&AC 30804.7; Skrbina v Fleming Companies 45 CA4 1353, T/AT 7/96; Tunkl v Regents 60 C2 92]
|
|
