Dog Attacks - Governmental Dogs & Police K-9s
Our Pittsburgh lawyers handle dog bite claims involving police K-9s or other dogs owned or controlled by governmental entities, such as a township, municipality, or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including shelters or dogs in police custody.
Call or Email Our Dog Bite Lawyers Today
New Number! 412.400.5476
Police dogs or K-9 units are useful tools for law enforcement. However, when a police canine (often a German Shepherd) is not trained or utilized properly, serious injuries do occur. For example, in San Jose, California, a police dog bit a man's throat for sixty seconds.
Such tragedies are fairly common, even here in PA. Yours truly has litigated at least one case involving a K-9 attacking an innocent person.
The Common Scenario For Improper K-9 Attacks in Pennsylvania
It starts innocently enough: a tenant, property owner or property manager calls the police because there's a burglar in a house or apartment building. The police are nervous because they don't know where the intruder may be hiding. So they bring a K9. The police call out: "Come out or we are releasing the K9!" The intruder is scared, silent.
Next, the police dog is released. It searches, looking, listening, sniffing, on high alert, knowing it may need to attack. At that moment, absent proper commands or training, the dog may attack anyone -- not just the intruder -- often causing an innocent person to be attacked, bitten, and severely harmed.
This above scenario was captured on youtube: a police dog investigation going wrong
Best Option For Compensation: PA Dog Bite Law or Federal Law?
First we'll first address PA's Dog Bite Law, then we'll address a based on federal law for a dog bite, namely 42 U.S. Code § 1983. The latter is most broad. PA's immunity statue limits PA's Dog Bite Law as applied to claims against the government. However, Section 1983 is not so limited. It can entitle the injured party to an award for her reasonable attorney fees and punitive damages. Plus, §1983 not subject to the PA's statutory cap, discussed below.
Pennsylvania Dog Bite Law: Major Limitations
In Pennsylvania, liability exists for a dog bite attack by a police or K-9 unit. Click here to learn about PA dog law, generally. For the most part, it's based on negligence -- i.e., an act or omission in disregard of foreseeable harm. It can also be based on the dog's prior dangerous propensities or lack of training. Plus, strict liability exists in some instances, doing away with the "one free bite" rule, so there are lots of ways to proceed under PA state law for a K-9 attack.
But here's the problem with a PA Dog Bite Law: PA limits claims against the government in three key ways.
1. Requirement Formal Notice of A Claim within 6 Months of Injury
There must be formal written notice ("Formal Notice") to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or a local agency (town or municipality) with six (6) months of the attack as a prerequisite to filing suit. Formal Notice should be prepared by counsel and include
-
-
- Name of the injured party
- Date of the injury
- Nature of the injury, and
- The the places where the victim received treatment.
-
Importantly, the Formal Notice must be served via certified mail to confirm delivery within six months of the injury. Otherwise, the subsequent lawsuit based on said claims may be dismissed.
Moreover, in addition to Formal Notice, the Cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia require a dog bite victim to fill out additional forms in order for the claim to be processed. Click here for Pittsburgh, and here for Philadelphia's claim related forms.
2. Cap on Damages Plus Governmental Immunities
There's a statutory cap or limit of $500,000 for claims on municipalities and $250,000 against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Moreover, state actors are immune, except for claims involving negligence. This means, no claim can be made for punitive damages for a dog bite or animal attack, even if the state actor's conduct was willful or wanton.
3. Requiring to Prove Knowledge of Prior Dangerous Propensities
Although there are exceptions, Pennsylvania Dog Bite Law is not entirely "strict liability" like many other states. As such, in certain cases, the injured party must show the dog owner had reason to know of his dog's "dangerous propensities" prior to the attack. That said, showing "prior dangerous propensities" can be challenging if, for example the dog had been a "model citizen" and had never acted aggressively in any way: never chased anyone, barked, growled, ever. Our experienced Pittsburgh lawyers overcome such limits regularly, but the requirement of proof of prior notice of dangerous propensities can complicated a dog bite claim against a government official, township, borough or Commonwealth of PA owned canine.
Federal Claims Under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 For a Dog Bite
First, hold up. How can a claim for a dog bite based on federal law exist when such claims are limited in PA? When state and federal law are at odds, federal law reigns "supreme." This is based on the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Moreover, 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - creates a civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights, as follows:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress..." (Emphasis added).
Who May Bring A § 1983 Dog Bite Claim?
The right to bring a claim under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 for damages exists not only for citizens injured by the government, but also persons of any age (a child, children or kids) or any "other person within the jurisdiction," regardless of immigration status.
What Damages Recoverable Under Section 1983?
The damages available under Section 1983 are expansive. For example, under federal law, a party can recover money for all the items of damages recoverable under state law. These include a claim for scars or disfigurement, emotional distress, lost wages or lost earning capacity, loss of consortium (comfort and companionship from the injured spouse). However, the key difference under federal law is the right to recover one's attorney fees. The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 allows a court, in its discretion, to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in dog bite claim filed pursuant to § 1983. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
Attorney Time Adds-Up Quickly in Dog Bite Claims For Injuries
Our Pittsburgh lawyers handling dog bite claims on a pure contingency basis, meaning, there's no fee unless we get a recovery). However, when our claim is based on Section 1983, we keep track of our hourly time, to bill the Defendant. These can be substantial. Pleading and proving a dog bite claim in Pennsylvania requires time to:
-
- Prepare a law suit,
- Interview witnesses,
- Exchange formal written questions and answers with the Parties,
- Conduct depositions,
- Hire an expert (usually a medical doctor or plastic surgeon) to testify. An expert may be needed to establish the permanency of a scar and/or the cost of medical treatment.
All of this can take dozens of hours of attorney time Plus, it is not unusual for a lawyer handling a claim state or federal court for violation of Constitutional rights to charge in excess of $300 per hour. As such, any party sued pursuant to Section 1983 has to think long and hard about how aggressively they want to defend the action. In truth, the failure to take responsibility for a section 1983 early can ultimately cost the Defendant, in the long run, helping entice early settlement.
Call or Email Our Dog Bite Lawyers Today
New Number! 412.400.5476
Liability For a Dog Bite Pursuant to 42 U.S. Code § 1983
As mentioned, it is not necessary to show the police had knowledge of the K9 unit's "prior dangerous propensities to state a §1983 claim. Although, this would certainly suffice, but are numerous other ways liability will exist pursuant to Section 1983 for a dog bite.
Failure to Adequately Train a Police Dog
In Campbell v. City of Springboro, #11-3589, 700 F.3d 779 (6th Cir. 2012), both a woman and a man were attacked and bitten by a K9 police dog, and these were separate incidents. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and the federal appeals court agreed. A claim was able to go forward against (1) the dog’s handler, who happened to be the chief of police, and (2) the city on excessive force theory. Also permitted were clams for failure to supervise, and failure to properly train the dog.
Claims By Alleged Criminals or Perpetrators - Improper "Seizure"
Though it is generally an uphill battle, but still worth fighting at time, an alleged criminal or perpetrator attacked by a police dog during an arrest can trigger liability. The intentional use of a police dog to detain a suspect constitutes a “seizure” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the officer's conduct must be judged under the “objective reasonableness” standard. Vathekan v. Prince George’s County, #96-2246, 154 F.3d 173 (4th Cir. 1998).
How does this create liability?
The officer involved, department, and police chief may be held responsible for use of a dog in a situation where it would not be "reasonable," regardless of the dog's prior dangerous propensity. In Graham v. Connor, #87-6571, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the United States Supreme Court opined that the Fourth Amendment's “objective reasonableness” standard applies to all of K9s.
This places at issue a wide range of police conduct, regarding the of dogs to search or detain. In each instance, the police need an objective basis to utilize the dog for not only an arrest, but also an investigatory stop. That “reasonableness” inquiry is simply: whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in given the circumstances confronting him, regardless of their underlying intent or motivation. This also makes an allowance for an officer to make a “split-second” decisions about the amount of force needed in a given circumstance.
Supervisor Liability Under Section 1983 and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
The case of Keith Rosenberg v Michael John Vangelo, et. al. MICHAEL JOHN VANGELO, et al, NO. 01-2514 (April 18, 2002) was right here in the Third Circuit. There, a court has denied the motion for summary judgment filed by an officer and supervisor to claims under Section 1983. Also denied was the Defendants' motion to dismiss the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, since negligent infliction of emotional distress does not require expert evidence in support of it. As for supervisor liability, the Rosenberg Court noted:
The Third Circuit, in Brown v. Muhlenberg Township, 269 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2001), recently stated that: In Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1118 (3d Cir. 1989), this court identified the elements of a supervisory liability claim. The plaintiff must (1) identify the specific supervisory practice or procedure that the supervisor failed to employ, and show that (2) the existing custom and practice without the identified, absent custom or procedure created an unreasonable risk of the ultimate injury, (3) the supervisor was aware that this unreasonable risk.
Qualified Immunity in Section 1983 Claims
As to qualified immunity, the Rosenberg Court further noted:
The Supervisor Defendants do acknowledge that “[t]he defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials performing discretionary acts from civil liability as long as their conduct ‘does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.’ Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).” However, they do not analyze: (1) whether under the proper standard, Rosenberg has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the acts; or (3) whether a reasonable person in the official’s position would have known that his conduct would violate that right. See Amaro v. Taylor, 170 F. Supp.2d 460, 465 (D. Del. 2001).
Call or Email Our Dog Bite Lawyers Today
New Number! 412.400.5476
Our Pittsburgh attorneys are here to help with any dog bite related matter across all of Pennsylvania. A governmental worker, bitten on the job, could also have a claim for workers' compensation for the dog bite. Click here for more.