Can the person who harbors a canine that bites someone also be liable for medical mistakes that occur while treating the victim’s injuries?
Let’s say, for example, your neighbor’s dog escapes their property and trespasses on yours, to attack you in your front yard. Clear liability. You seek medical treatment at a nearby hospital. But there, a doctor accidentally causes a new injury, by using sutures that “seal in” bacteria from the dog’s teeth, causing a serious infection.
Can your neighbor — who failed to keep his pet on his own property — be liable for the doctor’s medical mistake while treating your wound? The answer is, yes, — but the jury’s verdict may surprise you.
Enter the parties in Boggavarapu v. Ponist, 518 Pa. 162, 542 A.2d 516 (Pa. 1988).
PA Supreme Court Discusses Canine Possessor Liability
In Boggavarupu, the plaintiff suffered two puncture wounds to her right arm, when bitten by a neighbor’s dog. The plaintiff’s injuries also required tetanus shots administered at a nearby hospital. Allegedly, one of needles administering the shot damaged the plaintiff’s sciatic nerve. Plaintiff, therefore, joined in the lawsuit not only the canine owner, but also the hospital and treating physician.
1. Claim of Damages
The Plaintiff filed suit for medical expenses of approximately $9,000 plus pain and suffering.
2. The Jury’s Verdict on the Medical Malpractice Issue
The jury found no liability on the part of the treating physician or hospital, however, holding the dog owner (alone) responsible for the incident, and only awarding $42.60, the cost of emergency room treatment, as damages to the appellee.
3. The Supreme Court’s Analysis of Who is Liable for Malpractice
The Supreme Court noted:
It is hornbook law, that one is responsible for the consequences of his tort. Spangler v. Helm’s New York-Pittsburgh Motor Exp., 396 Pa. 482, 153 A.2d 490 (1959). Original tortfeasors therefore are primarily liable for all that befalls the one they injure in the hands of those whose treatment is required. Thompson v. Fox, 326 Pa. 209, 192 A. 107 (1937). If that treatment negligently exacerbates the original injury both become tortfeasors and both must answer to each other in compensating the injured for the losses they inflict. As between the tortfeasors one may do more than the other and each must proportionally pay as the jury determines. Lasprogata v. Qualls, 263 Pa.Super 174, 397 A.2d 803 (1979); Restatement (Second) Torts §§ 457, 434.
However, the supreme court also noted that while a jury may find that an injury caused “pain and suffering,” the jury is not required to make such a finding.
Moreover, a jury unsure about the Plaintiff’s credibility can arrive upon a compromise verdict. Where evidence is disputed and the jury doesn’t know what to do, a jury can “compromise,” which is often a random and downward reduction of the amount it awards a plaintiff. “A jury is given wide latitude to fashion a verdict on damages.” Farese v. Robinson, 222 A.3d 1173 (Pa.Super. 2019)
Likewise, just because a jury can find multiple parties liable for an incident, including a doctor who was negligent treating injuries caused by another — a jury is not required to find all such parties liable to the Plaintiff. Rather, the jury is free to weigh the evidence to evaluate how far liability should extend in every case. Here, in Boggavarupu, describing the jury, the Supreme Court noted:
They exercised their prerogative to believe all, some, or none of the evidence, and with their verdict the matter ends.
Let’s Get Started!
Treating a canine wound can cause lots of unintended consequences, including not only nerve damage, but also infection or making the appearance of a scar much worse. You should talk to a legal processional to fully understand your rights. Thus, if you or a loved one suffered injuries caused by a canine, contact us today for a free consultation to evaluate claims on all possible parties.
412.400.5476