Our Pittsburgh Dog Bite Lawyers are often asked: can I make a claim for emotional distress from a dog bite in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? The short answer is: yes. Any person responsible for violating Pennsylvania’s Dog Law is responsible for not only the injured party’s physical injuries, disfigurement, and medical bills, but also emotional distress.
Effect on One’s Life
Following a canine attack, the victim can feel a whole set of reactions, over and above fear of dogs:
-
Nightmares, which may or may not involve the attack (and may also repeat)
-
Weight gain / loss or change of appetite
-
Difficulty getting sleep,
-
Stuttering and other speech issues,
-
Personality changes
-
Sudden overwhelming feelings of emotion, such as anger, sadness, and weeping for no identifiable basis.
-
Depression and sadness from the lack of good surgical options to correct a scar in many cases.
-
Lack of exercise, from being afraid to go outside, as many attacks happen on a sidewalk or public area near the victim’s home.
Alienation From Family and Friends
Many victims of canine attacks — including children — are dog lovers, who suffer post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from a dog bite. Adults and kids can start to fear all dogs, which is not only stressful, but it often alienates the dog bite victim from family and friends, who have dogs, which are innocent. But even an innocent dog can be scary to the survivor of a canine attack.
The stress one suffers following an animal attack can also interfere with work, earning capacity, and enjoyment of life. For these reasons, we counsel our clients who have been attacked by a dog to seek counseling of some sort. Our law firm will order the medical and counseling records.
Proving Emotional Distress
Many therapists will agree to provide their records in summary form, so the very sensitive observations made in notes by the therapists are not disclosed, as this could jeopardize the outcome of treatment. We also advise those seeking therapy resulting from a dog bite to speak with the counselor (licensed counselor, psychologist, or psychologist) only in regard to the dog bite, and leave other matters (such as spousal conflict unrelated to the attack) for alternate treatment, to keep it separate from the dog bite treatment.
Severe Emotional Distress For Witnessing Another Being Attacked
What if you were not bitten or attacked yourself, but you happened to see or hear another being attacked? Does such a claim exist? The answer is: it depends. In this area, there are two distinct claims that can be made: one for negligent infliction of emotional distress and the other is for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
The superior Court in Love vs. Cramer, 606 A.2d 1175 (Superior Ct. 1992) described a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress as follows:
“The basis of recovery for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress is the traumatic impact of viewing the negligent injury of a close relative. Hoffner v. Hodge, 47 Pa.Comm. 277, 407 A.2d 940 (1979). A person who does not experience a sensory and contemporaneous observance of the injury does not state a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Mazzagatti, supra. In formulating the rule, the Supreme Court “contemplated a discrete and identifiable traumatic event to trigger recovery.” Beradi v. Johns-Manville Corp., 334 Pa.Super. 36, 44, 482 A.2d 1067, 1071 (1984). In the absence of such an event, no recovery is permitted.” (Emphasis added)
Thus, a claim will exist when (a) a person witnesses — through sight or sound — a canine attack injury to a close relative (parent, child, or spouse) and (b) suffers contemporaneous resulting psychological impact. There must also be a manifestation of the a physical impact on the claimant, but the superior court has opined the following allegations are sufficient: “…physical manifestations of emotional suffering, i.e. depression, nightmares, stress, and anxiety.” Likewise, psychological treatment is also evidence of a “physical manifestation.”
Gone is the rule that the claimant be in the “zone of danger,” but many lawyers who had learned that test in law school still apply it, though it is unnecessary by today’s standard. Now, the key component is the “contemporaneous” aspect: did the plaintiff see or hear the attack and suffer a contemporaneous impact?
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Take it from a Pittsburgh lawyer, “intentional” infliction of emotional distress has the same elements as a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, except here, the Plaintiff must also show two additional things: (a) Defendant’s conduct was reckless (“extreme and outrageous”) in terms his failure to control his dog, and (b) Plaintiff needs expert evidence to prove the existence of emotional harm and distress.
As for what constitutes “outrageous” conduct, the Supreme court of Pennsylvania has given guidance in Daughen v. Fox, 539 A. 2d 858 – Pa: Supreme Court 1988:
The species of tort created by section 46 provides only the most nebulous definition of `outrageous’ conduct.” 515 Pa. 194, 527 A.2d 993. The court quoted extensively from Givelber, The Right to Minimum Social Decency and the Limits of Evenhandedness: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Outrageous Conduct, 82 Colum.L.Rev. 42, 52-53 (1982) including the statement that:
The outrageousness test presents the related difficulty that recovery often depends, at least in the first instance, upon a court’s determination that the defendant behaved in an immoral and uncivilized fashion. Yet, despite claims that they serve as “society’s conscience,” courts may have no particular wisdom with respect to what is socially intolerable. The court’s gatekeeping task is hardly aided by the Restatement’s glib assurance that the tort covers only those cases that are so extreme that people are literally aroused to proclaim “outrageous.”
Still, upon meeting with a client and evaluating her claims, we often decide to build a case for “outrageous conduct.” A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress allows for a recovery of both punitive damages and attorney fees. Plus, although punitive damages are not covered by liability insurance, a judgment related to intentional or reckless conduct cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. This gives the injured party considerable leverage in settlement negotiations.
Our Pittsburgh dog bite lawyers look for every angle to maximize the recovery for everyone who has been bitten, attacked, or witnesses a canine attack. Contact our Western Pennsylvania bar members for a free consultation about any animal attack related claim.
New Number! 412.400.5476
Email Us