Our primary responsibility — as Pittsburgh lawyers helping dog bite victims — is to give candid advice that helps our injured clients. One thing we say during every consultation is: there are no guarantees in litigation. A good lawyer can help your enhance your chances of success, but sometimes, an injured party — represented by plaintiff’s counsel — can lose, even to a pro se (unrepresented) defendant – dog owner.
In Calhoun v. Valorie, CP. Allegheny County No. AR-20-004235, as reported, the Plaintiff – Phillip Calhoun delivered mail to the Defendant, Jennilee Valorie. Calhoun claimed that the Defendant’s German shepherd escaped from her home and attacked him, biting down on his hand and arms. These allegations — if true — are sufficient to recover for a dog bite claim in Pennsylvania.
So it looks pretty good for the Plaintiff, right?
PA Dog Law – Negligence Per Se
In fact, Pennsylvania Dog Law imposes a duty upon canine owners to keep their animals under “reasonable control.” Moreover, the owner of a dog that escapes can be charged criminally for a dog “running at large,” which also creates civil liability based on “negligence per se.”
Trial By Judge Versus Jury
Also favoring the Plaintiff in Calhoun v. Valorie, CP. Allegheny County No. AR-20-004235 is the fact that a judge — not a jury — would decide the case.
Why is this significant?
In Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), jurors tend to be the children and grandchildren of coal and steel workers — company town guys — who “don’t sue.” Many in Western PA believe: “you make your money at the mill, not the courtroom, so don’t sue, unless you can’t work.” Hence, jury verdicts in Western PA tend to be significantly lower than Eastern PA — such as Philadelphia — unless the case goes before a judge, not a jury. Then, in Western PA, the Plaintiff’s chances of winning may go up.
So the dog bite Plaintiff — represented by counsel — in Calhoun should have easily won against an unrepresented canine owner, right?
Well…
Defendant Claims: Provocation and Comparative Negligence
The Defendant – Valorie claimed the mail carrier Plaintiff had been comparatively negligent, by yelling profanities at the animal, when it had returned home and was at the front door. Valorie claims she held the dog’s collar, controlling it, but Plaintiff kicked the dog (allegedly), making the animal enraged, causing it to pull free and attack the Plaintiff.
A claim of comparative negligence shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant. Plus, even if successful, the defense of comparative negligence does not automatically defeat a claim, unless the Plaintiff was 51 percent negligent. Otherwise, the claim is reduced by the degree of negligence. But a claim that the Plaintiff had “provoked” the dog to attack — if proven — is an absolute bar of the claim.
The Decision in This Dog Bite Case
Ultimately, Judge Terrance O’Brien dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims, ruling for the defense. That said, Judge O’Brien determined that the Plaintiff had not provoked the dog. This could only mean that Judge O’Brien either (1) didn’t believe Plaintiff’s claims about how the attack happened, or (3) felt that Plaintiff’s comparative negligence was the 51% (or more) cause of his injuries.
Contact a Pittsburgh Dog Bite Attorney Today!
412.400.5476
Call or write to a Pittsburgh dog bite lawyer for a free consultation right now!