Finally! Strict Liability (Sort of) For Pet Aggression in PA

Category: Uncategorized
Pet in front of the "City of Bridges"Most states have adopted a strict liability standard for injuries from a canine bite, meaning, the victim need not prove “negligence” to obtain a recovery. But Pennsylvania historically has refused, requiring proof of negligence in every case, unless the pet had:

  • escaped from reasonable control,

  • caused injury due to the owner’s disregard of the animal’s known dangerous tendencies (including a history of aggression or over-excitability), or

  • inflicted life-threatening injuries. 

But in early 2024, Pennsylvania amended its Dangerous Dog Law to expand criminal liability (and therefore civil liability, discussed below) for all unprovoked pet attacks. This change broadens the scope of accountability for pet owners or those harboring the animal. See 3 P.S. § 459‑100 et seq., part of Pennsylvania’s “Dog Law” in Chapter 8 of Title 3 (Agriculture). In fact, section 459‑502‑A(a)(1) of the Law expressly creates liability where the pet:  

(i) inflicted severe injury on a human being without provocation on public or private property, [or]
(ii) killed or inflicted severe injury on a domestic animal, dog or cat without provocation while off the owner’s property, [or]
(iii)attacked [any] human being without provocation, [or] 
(iv) been used in the commission of a crime.   

Massive Impact in Civil Cases

In Pennsylvania, violation of a criminal statute can also create civil liability based on a concept called “negligence per se.”  This will apply, if the plaintiff demonstrates:  

    • a violation of a statute caused the kind of harm the statute was intended to prevent; and
    • the plaintiff was within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect.

Two Pennsylvania Superior Court cases involving dog attack lawsuits, Miller v. Hurst, 302 Pa. Super. 235 (1982) and Underwood vs. Wind, et al., 2008 Pa. Super. 158 (2008).  In each, the courts have held that a violation of the Dog Law constitutes negligence per se.  Regarding the 2024 amendments, Pennsylvania courts have not yet expressly ruled on whether, in a civil case, a dog attack still requires proof of negligence. 

However, it looks very promising that the courts will now apply a strict liability standard for any pet-related injury from an unprovoked pet. 

 

Provocation More Important Than “Dangerous Propensity.”  
Previously, if the dog had been under reasonable control (on a leash) and no serious injury occurred from the bite, the victim was out of luck, unless the victim could produce evidence of the dog’s “prior dangerous propensities.”  Now, however, only a lack of provocation is needed.  No statue defines “provocation.  But courts have found that no provocation existed where:   
    • a dog was simply excited. See Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 767 A.2d 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001),
    • a neighbor spoke to a leashed dog owner without touching the dog.  See Commonwealth v. Civello, 1998 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012)* (unpublished opinion).    
Conversely, provocation existed where: 
    • A child approached a recently fed dog that attacked.  See In re Renieli, No. P94-11-030 (Pa. Ins. Comm’r. Jan, 17, 1997).  

Ultimately, prosecutors — and the plaintiff in a civil case — bear the burden of proving a lack of provocation.  

 

Let’s Get Started!

Contact our professionals for free to learn more about your rights to compensation following an injury.    

412.400.5476

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone # / Best Time to Call You

    Your Message

    Please prove you are human by selecting the key.