In PA, there is no “strict liability” for a dog bite, typically. Rather, there are only two ways a person can be liable (civilly) for damages caused by a dog bite. The first is, the failure to control the animal (by a leash or otherwise). Or, the person harboring the canine must have knowledge — at the time of the attack — of the dog’s prior dangerous propensity.
But what about the dog’s breed? Can the breed of canine, alone, show the dog owner had knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities?
Does a Breed’s Reputation Create “Knowledge”?
What if the dog at issue had never been previously aggressive? For example, let’s say John owns a pit bull that’s never previously been aggressive. That said, the species — pit bull — is the breed of dog most commonly involved in deadly attacks and attacks on children. Can John be liable for having knowledge of his dog’s “dangerous propensity” based on prior attacks by the same breed?
The answer is: no.
Warner v. Cummings, No. 463 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 1, 2023)
In Warner v. Cummings, the Defendant’s dog attacked and significantly injured the Plaintiff. To prove liability, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant’s dog breed — an Akita — has a reputation for aggression and causing the type of harm that Plaintiff sustained. However, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (to dismiss the case before trial), claiming a lack of evidence to prove the Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the dog’s prior dangerous propensity at the time of the attack.
The trial court agreed with the Defendant and determined “the record lacks any evidence that [Appellees] had knowledge of the dog’s vicious tendencies prior to the attack, and therefore, cannot be held liable under the law.” Trial Ct. Op. at 4.
Then, on appeal to the Superior Court, the Superior court upheld the judge’s decision to dismiss the case:
[W]e agree with the trial court that there was no genuine issue of material fact to overcome the summary judgment motion. See Summer, 997 A.2d at 1159. The record supports the trial court’s determination that Appellant has identified no evidence creating a genuine question of fact as to whether Appellees “knew or should have known of their dog’s vicious propensities.”
Warner v. Cummings, above is a “non-precedential” opinion. This means it’s not binding on future cases, but judges in future cases can be persuaded by the reasoning of the Warner court. For this reason, Warner is an important decision and a reminder: a plaintiff suing for money for a dog bite needs to cite more than just the breed of the dog. That’s where
Free Consultation (About Dog Breed or Otherwise!)
Our Pittsburgh dog bite attorneys provide a free consultation over the phone or in person regarding any canine attack issue on adults or a child. Contact us today to ascertain your rights in Pennsylvania.
412.400.5476