What happens if a dog owner destroys evidence you need to build a case against him for your injuries from an attack? Can you file a separate lawsuit for the destruction of evidence in PA?
Let’s say, for example, you’re on a walking trail and you see a man walking a beautiful Border Collie from the opposite direction. The dog’s on a leash, but it rushes toward you, growling. The dog owner is strong; he holds the leash steady, but the leash breaks and the dog bites your arm. The owner claims he’s not sure why the leash had broke.
But it turns out, according to his neighbor, the leash had broke several times previously; and each time, the owner would just tie it back together with another crude knot, never replacing the leash. You then sue for not only compensatory damages, but also punitive damages, to deter such outrageous conduct in the future.
Only, prior to trial, the owner claims he threw the leash in the trash and it’s gone forever. No picture of the leash exist, allegedly. And, the neighbor moved away and refuses to testify.
Now what? Can you add a claim to your lawsuit for destruction of evidence (for all the time wasted sorting out what evidence is still available)?
No Separate Cause of Action for Spoliation
Importantly, Pennsylvania does not recognize an independent tort claim for spoliation of evidence. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has made clear that there is no separate lawsuit you can file simply because someone destroyed evidence.
In Erie Insurance Exchange v. United Services Automobile Association, 370 A.3d ___ (Pa. Jan. 21, 2026), Erie claimed that a party had destroyed evidence, after promising to preserve it, allegedly. While no independent claim for destruction of evidence — or “spoliation” — exists in PA, Erie claimed it had “reasonably relied” on a promise, creating a claim for “promissory estoppel,” which was a creative argument.
But PA’s Supreme Court didn’t buy it. Pennsylvania law does not permit litigants to circumvent established limits on spoliation claims through creative pleading, the Court ruled.
The Court’s reasoning builds directly upon its prior holding in Pyeritz v. Commonwealth, where it unequivocally stated that “no cause of action for negligent spoliation of evidence exists in Pennsylvania.” 613 Pa. 80, 32 A.3d 687, 692 (2011). Together, these decisions confirm that while Pennsylvania courts may address spoliation through evidentiary sanctions—such as adverse inference instructions—they will not recognize a standalone tort claim for the destruction of evidence.
Instead, the remedy lies within the underlying case itself. Courts address spoliation through evidentiary rulings and sanctions—most notably, the adverse inference instruction—rather than through a standalone claim for damages.
So what are these sanctions?
The Adverse Inference Rule
When a party destroys evidence they had a duty to preserve, courts may apply the adverse inference rule. This allows the judge or jury to infer that the destroyed evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction.
So in the above example, where the dog broke its leash to attack you, the jury may draw an adverse inference against the dog owner for leash that’s unavailable, such that missing leash such that the leash need not be produced at trial to prove the owner’s reckless conduct.
In serious cases, courts may also impose sanctions, including fines, exclusion of testimony, or even default judgment—depending on the level of intent and prejudice caused.
Pennsylvania courts typically consider:
-
Whether the party had a duty to preserve the evidence
-
The degree of fault (negligent vs. intentional destruction)
-
The prejudice suffered by the opposing party
Intentional destruction after notice of a claim is far more likely to result in strong sanctions.
Don’t Wait Until Evidence is Destroyed
If you’re bitten by a dog in Pennsylvania, the steps you take early on will matter. Your case may hinge on more than just medical records and photographs. Evidence about the dog’s history—prior complaints, a broken leash, warning texts, or neighborhood disputes—can be critical to proving liability. That’s why sending a preservation letter (also called a spoliation letter) to the dog owner or their insurer as soon as possible is so important.
Why a Preservation Letter Matters
A party must preserve evidence, but only when he both (1) knows of a claim or potential claim and (2) knows that a certain piece of evidence will be related to the claim. Most of the time, these things are obvious. Still, a defendant may claim he “didn’t know” what evidence mattered. Maybe, in the above example, he thought the case the case would turn on his Border Collie’s temperament, not the strength of the leash, because “nobody told me otherwise,” setting the stage for legal wrangling on this issue.
A preservation letter formally notifies the defendant that a claim is anticipated and instructs them to retain specific types of relevant evidence. This duty to preserve can extend not only to phyisical evidence and paper documents, but also to electronically stored information (ESI), including texts, emails, and social media content.
Practical Takeaway
If you are bitten by a dog in Pennsylvania:
-
Have your attorney send a preservation letter immediately.
-
Be specific about the types of evidence to be preserved (texts, emails, complaints, veterinary records, insurance communications, etc.).
-
Act quickly—electronic evidence can disappear fast.
While you cannot sue separately for spoliation, the destruction of evidence can significantly strengthen your case if the court applies an adverse inference. In some situations, a defendant who tries to hide damaging information may ultimately make the plaintiff’s case easier to prove.
Let’s Get Started!
Contact our professionals for free to learn more about your rights to recover money for all the consequences of your injuries.
412.400.5476