FAQ - Chances of My Case Being Thrown Out Early?

Can a Dog Bite Lawsuit Be Thrown Out Right Away?

A man in a robe, a judge, throws out a case in the form of papers in an actual garbage can that's green If you or a loved one has been bitten by a canine in Pennsylvania, one of the first questions you may have is whether your case will even survive long enough to be heard. Pet owners and insurance companies often try to shut down canine related claims early by arguing that the law doesn’t allow recovery unless the owner knew the dog was dangerous.

How Can a Case Be Dismissed Early On?

Isn’t there a right to a jury trial?

Not always.

The defendant may file something called “preliminary objections” to your suit (Pa.R.C.P 1019), before ever responding to the substance of your claims. Or, they may defend the case for a little while, take some depositions for example, then file a motion for summary judgment prior to trial (Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2). Each seeks a “demurrer,” meaning, a dismissal of the suit prior to a judge or jury ruling on the facts.

What Is a Demurrer, and Why Does It Matter?

A demurrer is a legal maneuver filed prior to trial, to dismiss a case.

It essentially claims:

“Even if everything the injured person says is true, the law still doesn’t allow the case to proceed.”

If granted, a demurrer can end a lawsuit before all the evidence is exchanged. Because of that, courts must accept the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and view them in the light most favorable to the injured victim.

The Case: Roegner v. Steezar

An example will help make this clear.

In Roegner v. Steezar, No. 2019-CV-929 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Sept. 6, 2019 Nealon, J.), the plaintiffs were guests on the defendants’ property when one plaintiff was suddenly attacked by a pit bull owned by a member of the household.

The lawsuit alleged that the pet owner:

Failed to properly restrain and control the pet
Knew or should have known the dog had dangerous tendencies
Violated Pennsylvania’s Dog Law by failing to confine or secure the animal

The defendant dog owner’s argument was two fold:

1. PA dog law did not impose automatic liability for dog bites (not in 2019, at least, discussed below) and
2. The complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to establish negligence.

Thus, in Roegner, the defendant filed a demurrer, seeking early dismissal of the suit.

What Pennsylvania Law Traditionally Required

The trial judge in Roegner agreed that dog bite law in PA — traditionally — required proof of negligence. Specifically, a plaintiff was required to allege that:

The dog had dangerous propensities
The owner knew or should have known of those propensities
The owner failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury

The court also emphasized important principles that are often misunderstood:

A dog’s behavior, not its breed, determines whether it is dangerous
A dog can be legally “dangerous” due to lack of control or overly aggressive playfulness
Pennsylvania law does not distinguish between “vicious” and merely “dangerous” animals, as these are questions for a jury or judge deciding the facts.

**Why the Roegner Court Refused to Throw Out the Case?**

At the demurrer stage, courts must accept the plaintiff’s allegations as true. Applying that standard, Judge Nealon ruled that the complaint sufficiently alleged negligence and could not be dismissed early.

The court made clear that arguments about whether the dog was actually dangerous—or whether the owner truly knew—are fact issues that must be explored through discovery, not assumed at the outset. For example, it’s for the jury to decide whether a pet’s proclivity to jump up on people — even if done playfully – would make a dog “dangerous.”

A Major Legal Shift: Pennsylvania’s Amended Dog Law

While Roegner applied the traditional negligence framework, recent amendments to Pennsylvania’s Dangerous Dog Law significantly change the legal landscape, particularly when a dog attack is unprovoked.

Under 3 P.S. Section 459-502-A, a person may now face criminal liability if their dog, without provocation:

Inflicts severe injury on a human
Kills or severely injures a domestic animal while off the owner’s property
Attacks a human being
Is used in the commission of a crime
Has a history of attacking humans or animals

Crucially, the amended law eliminated the requirement that prosecutors prove the dog had a prior propensity to attack or a history of violence in most criminal cases.

Provocation Is Now the Central Issue

Provocation has always been a good defense to a canine attack claim.

But now it’s even more important. Important changes to PA’s dog bite criminal statute occurred in early 2024. These changes made a dog owner responsible for every attack on a human, unless the canine had been provoked. With this, provocation—not prior knowledge—has become the critical question in every case.

So what is provocation?

Provocation is not defined by the statute and is decided on a case-by-case basis. Pennsylvania courts have held:

No provocation where a dog was merely excited Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 767 A.2d 644 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001)
No provocation where a neighbor spoke to the owner while the dog was leashed (Commonwealth v. Civello)
Provocation where a child approached a dog while it was eating (In re Renieli)

In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the attack was unprovoked, and judges have broad discretion in making that determination.

Why This Matters in Civil Dog Bite Lawsuits

Although these amendments directly apply to criminal dog attack cases, they are likely to have a major impact on civil injury claims as well.

Pennsylvania courts have long held that:

A violation of the Dog Law can constitute negligence per se
An unexcused violation of the Dog Law supports civil liability

Cases such as Miller v. Hurst and Underwood v. Wind confirm that when a statute designed to protect the public is violated, and someone is injured as a result, negligence may be established without traditional proof of fault.

What This Means Going Forward

Because the amended Dog Law no longer requires proof of a dog’s prior violent history or propensity in criminal cases, plaintiffs will increasingly argue that:

Civil liability should not depend on proving prior knowledge at the pleading stage
An unprovoked attack that violates the Dog Law establishes a breach of duty
Early dismissal attempts through demurrers are improper where statutory violations are alleged

Pennsylvania courts will ultimately define the outer limits of these changes, but the trend is clear: the law is moving toward accountability rather than technical defenses.

The Bottom Line for Victims

Between Roegner v. Steezar, the amended Dog Law, and negligence-per-se principles, one conclusion stands out:

Dog bite lawsuits should not be thrown out early simply because an owner claims ignorance of prior danger.

When a canine attack is unprovoked and violates Pennsylvania’s Dog Law, that conduct may establish both criminal responsibility and civil liability. Properly pleaded cases deserve discovery, evidence, and a fair hearing—not dismissal by shortcut.

That is why having experienced counsel at the outset matters. The way a dog bite claim is framed from day one can determine whether justice is delayed—or denied.

Let’s Get Started!

The better representation you have, the greater the chance your claim will survive early dismissal, especially in the trickier case. Reduce the chances of your case being thrown out early. Contact just for free. No obligation.