Violating a state, county, or city law requiring a leash can, by itself, prove negligence on the part of a dog owner for an attack. Let’s look at (1) PA law, (2) city law, and (3) other rules that might create liability for failure to have a dog on a leash in Pennsylvania. 

1. Pennsylvania’s Dog Law

A close review of Pennsylvania’s Dog Bite Law reveals it does not contain a “leash law,” require a “leash,” or even use the word “leash” anywhere in the law.  The key statute is 3 Pa. Stat. § 459-305, which merely provides: 

Thus, 3 Pa. Stat. § 459-305 only requires “reasonable control,” which may involve a leash, or it might not.  For example, the dog’s owner (or keeper) may have trained the dog to strictly obey commands. There, the law would deem the dog under “reasonable control, even if off leash, if the owner is nearby and gives appropriate commands to the dog to prevent an attack.  What’s an injured person to do, if attacked by an off-leash but well-trained dog? Is the victim of an unrestrained dog without a claim for “failure to control” the dog? 

Not necessarily.

First, look to municipality (or local township) law.

 

2. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia Leash Law

Both the City of Pittsburgh and City of Philadelphia have leash laws, requiring all dogs within city limits to be a leash.  For example, referencing local rules, the City of Pittsburgh’s website provides: 

• • Dogs are not permitted to run unleashed on public streets, sidewalks, other public places or other people’s property.

  • If you are walking your dog, it must be on a leash or chain not more than 6 feet in length.

Likewise, the City of Philadelphia’s website indicates:

• • City of Philadelphia leash laws: The City requires that dogs be on a six-foot or shorter leash and that owners clean up after their pets. See Philadelphia Code Sections 10-104 and 10-105 for the complete rules.

OK, so if an off-leash dog attacks you within those city limits, you’ll have an easy claim against the dog owner for failure to “restrain” the dog.

But what if the attack happens in PA, but outside of the city limits of Pittsburgh or Philadelphia? And let’s say the off-leash dog had been trained to obey commands, but simply failed to do so? Is the victim of an unrestrained dog without a claim for “failure to control” the dog? 

Not necessarily.

3. Violation Rules Imposed by Property Owners  

The owner property maintains the power to require those using the property to keep their dogs on a leash.  There, if the dog owner knows of the leash-rule, but ignores it, this does not create automatic liability on the part of the dog owner via “negligence per se.”  However, it can show carelessness on the part of the dog owner.  And, carelessness is proof of negligence. 

Here’s an example. 

Let’s say you decide to use a “public trail” but it’s on private property or land owned by a non-profit.  The land-owner notes (1) the amount of heavy foot traffic from people walking dogs and (2) the narrow nature of some of the trial.  As such, the property owner decides that all dogs — on the owner’s trails — must be on a leash.  There, the posted “leash rule” can put every dog walker on notice of potential issues from failing to control one’s dog on trail.  

For example, the Rachel Carson Trail — owned by the Rachel Carson Trails Conservancy — notes that “ethics” requires use of a leash when walking a dog on the trail: 

Trail Ethics

At all times while hiking the Rachel Carson Trail, please:

• • • • Be courteous to people living along the trail.
      • Remember, you are generally on private property.
      • Respect the land and its owners. If asked to leave, do so.
      • Stay on the trail.
      • Do not camp or build fires along the trail.
      • Dogs must be on leashes; please be mindful that our trails use private property.
      • Refrain from using bicycles on the trail.
      • Keep off the trail with motorized vehicles.

Thus, while this may not be enough to create automatic liability for failing to leash one’s dog on the Rachel Carson Trial, disregarding this publicly posted information about the trial shows carelessness for the safety of others, and therefore a basis for liability for general “negligence.”  

Let’s Get Started!

Call or email a Pittsburgh lawyer at our firm today — for a free consultation about any animal attack related claim in Pennsylvania. 

412.400.5476