Posts Tagged ‘dog’

Helen was taking a leisurely stroll on a sunny Saturday afternoon on Main Street in Hawley. Helen was on her way to the candy store when, out of the corner of her eye, she noticed a rather large dog without a collar crossing the street heading towards her.

Helen continued to walk towards the store as the dog got closer and closer. Helen did not see any type of aggressive behavior with the dog and reached down to pet it. Unfortunately, as soon as Helen stuck her hand out, the dog bit her, causing a serious injury to her hand. When Helen screamed, the dog let go and ran away. Because of various complications, Helen’s medical bills would run over $20,000.

Issue: Does Helen have any right to bring a lawsuit against the municipality?

Answer: No. A stray dog on a town sidewalk would not be considered within the care, custody or control of the municipality. The municipality would enjoy sovereign immunity or, in other words, could not be sued in such a circumstance. Examples of potential liability would be for police dogs and/or horses that were being used by policemen.

In cases involving animals, a court will determine whether the animal at issue was a wild or a domestic animal. If the animal is wild, there is no liability. If the animal is considered a domestic animal, then the court will make a determination whether or not that animal is in the control of the local governmental agency. If it is not, then there can be no lawsuit against the municipality.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

In a confidential settlement, the DLP law firm secured an award of $540,000 for a victim in a vicious dog bite attack. Personal injury Attorney David Smacchi was the handling attorney for the dog bite victim.

With a large number of cats and dogs being killed or becoming severely sickened by the recent “tainted” pet food scare, many pet owners are wondering what remedies and/or damages are available to them.  Unfortunately, in Pennsylvania, pets are considered personal property. 3 P.S. 459-601(a).  Because pets are only considered personal property, the damages a pet owner can recover against a party who negligently injures his pet is the cost of any veterenary bills he incurs to treat the animal.  If a negligent party causes the death of one’s pet, the pet owner’s recoverable damages would be limited to an amount equal to the value of the pet.  The value of the pet would be determined essentially by what the pet owner paid to purchase the animal.

Most pet owners develop a sentimental attachment to their animals.  However, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has considered this issue and does not allow a pet owner to recover any additional damages due to the sentimental value the animal has to the pet owner.  See Daughen v. Fox, 539 A.2d 858, 372 Pa.Super. 405 (1988). (Although pet owners undoubtedly had sentimental attachment to mongrel dog, attachment did not make dog “unique chattel,” for purposes of determining entitlement to damages for loss arising from dog’s death).

Some pet owners have also argued that they should be able to recover damages for the emotional distress they suffered as a result of another’s negligent or intentional conduct  which injured and/or resulted in the death of their pet.  However, in Miller v. Peraino, 626 A.2d 637, 426 Pa.Super. 189 (1993), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that there could be no recovery by dog owners for intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon a veterinarian’s treatment of a dog inasmuch as a dog is property rather than a family member.

If you have any questions regarding what remedies may be available to you as a result of injuries or death suffered by your pet, call the DLP team of Pennsylvania Personal Injury Attorneys for a free consultation.

John P. Finnerty, Esquire

A person entered the property of another to thank him for helping out in a matter. The person was attacked by a dog who was confined on the property by an electric fence. The person suffered serious dog bites. The person sued the dog owner claiming negligence. In the case of Bucher v Naylor, an Adams County Judge dismissed the injured person’s lawsuit. The Judge found that the claim was barred by the Pennsylvania Dog Law because the dog was confined to the owner’s property by an electric fence. Under the law the owner could only be held responsible if the dog was allowed to run free and remain unconfined.

Under Pennsylvania law, an owner of a dog is liable for the vicious acts of his dog if the owner (1) had knowledge or reason to know of the dog’s vicious propensities, and (2) failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the dog’s viciousness from harming any person.  The next question then is when is the owner considered to have knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities?  The answer is as soon as the owner knows or has good reason to believe that the animal is likely to do mischief. 

There is a maxim derived from old English common law which stated that every dog is entitled to one free bite.  This is another way of saying that a dog owner bears no responsibility for damages caused when his dog bites a person for the first time.  However, “the one free bite rule” is not the law of Pennsylvania.  A dog may show such ferocious propensities without ever biting anyone that it is his master’s duty to ensure that he is not afforded an opportunity to take a first bite.  

Any conduct by a dog which evidences vicious propensities is sufficient to establish notice to the owner of the dog’s vicious propensities.  Upon receipt of such notice, the dog owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to restrain and control the dog so that it cannot harm others.  An owner with notice who fails to so control his dog will be held liable for any injuries his dog inflicts on others.

Pennsylvania has enacted the Dog Law of 1982, 3 P.S. sec. 459-305.  This statutes provides as follows:

     It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of any dog to fail to keep at all times such dog either:

                1.   confined within the premises of the owner;

                2.   firmly secured by means of a collar and chain or other device so that it cannot 

                      stray beyond the premises on which it is secured; or

                3.   under the reasonable control of some person, or when engaged in lawful hunting,

                      exhibition or field training.

This statute was passed to protect the public from personal injury, property damage and other hazards created by roving dogs.  If a dog owner violates the above statute and his dog causes harm to another as a result of the violation, the dog owner will be held liable for the injuries caused by his dog.

If you or loved one have been bitten or injured by a dog and you have questions regarding whether the dog’s owner should be held responsible, please contact the Pennsylvania Personal Injury Attorneys of DLP and ask to speak to one of our attorneys for a free consultation regarding whether you may have a claim against the dog’s owner for damages.

 John P. Finnerty, Esquire