UPDATE: Claim on Employer for Dog Bite is Limited to Workers' Compensation, Only
Our Pittsburgh lawyers -- who focus on dog bite claims -- have written about a bite victim's right to sue his employer for a dog bite. There, as against the employer (not the dog owner if some else owns the dog) workers' compensation is the only remedy, which is not great for the victim.
Under workers' comp against the employer (not the dog owner), the attack victim gets no more than 2/3 of his average weekly salary plus his medical bills paid.
If the disfigurement or scar is above the neck, he can recover a lump sum from the employer, but it's nowhere near what a jury could award (outside the world of workers' comp) for pain, suffering, and disfigurement.
A Common Example of a Dog Bite Occurring "at Work"
So, for example, let's say a driver for Amazon delivers a man's new bathrobe to the customer's home. Only, the customer's pit bull mauls the delivery person.
There, if the Amazon driver sues Amazon (his employer), PA law will generally restrict his claims to 2/3 of his average weekly wage plus his medical bills. That's it. If his scar is above the neck, a worker' comp judge (not a jury) can award a lump sum for a stipulated number of weeks, but it pales in comparison to what a jury might award, as each dog bite lawyer at our firm can tell you.
But What if the Employer is Really, Really Negligent?
Enter the litigants in Lindsay Franczyk v Home Depot. There, Ms. Franczyk sustained a dog bite injury at work at Home Depot, creating a legitimate claim for workers' comp benefits. Ms. Franczyk also sued Home Depot for negligence (seeking greater than 2/3 of her average weekly wage), claiming that her supervisors allowed the dog owner and witnesses to leave the store before she was able to gather identifying information to pursue a third-party claim.
There, the trial court allowed Ms. Franczyk to proceed with her claim against her employer (Home Depot) for both workers' comp and negligence claims. Only, the Home Depot appealed all the way up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court's decision was authored by Justice Wecht (before whom the author of this article has argued many cases, including one case profiled by the New York Times, where this author's closing argument was quoted at length).
As expected, in Lindsay Franczyk v. Home Depot, Justice Wecht passed on the opportunity to disregard the Workers' Compensation Act, simply noting:
[T]he [Workers Compensation] Act generally precludes employees from bringing workplace injury claims against their employers, it preserves the employees' rights to bring negligence claims against third parties who bear some responsibility for employee injuries.
Justice Wecht also found that M.s Franczyk's claims did not meet any exception to the worker's comp exclusivity rule, such as intentional or reckless indifference by the employer. As such, the PA Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision to allow the injured party's claims for negligence and pain and suffering (over and above workers' comp) to proceed against the employer.
Contact Our Dog Bite Lawyers Today!
Each Pittsburgh attorney at our dog bite firm pays close attention to appellate case updates in the law regarding any claim for a dog bite or canine attack. Our PA lawyers charge nothing for the consultation, whether you are an Amazon driver, UPS, or Postal worker or driver. Call or email our Western PA lawyers today!