Summary Judgment Granted Where No Evidence Presented That Dog Owners Knew of Dangerous Propensities of Dog (Or That Dog Had Any)

In the case non-precedential decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Warner v. Cummings, No. 463 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Dec. 1, 2023 Bender, P.J.E., McCaffery, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Mem. Op. by McCaffery, J.), the court affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of a dog owner in a dog bite case.

At the lower court level, the court had entered summary judgment in favor of the dog owner after finding that there was no evidence that the Defendant dog owners had any knowledge that there dog allegedly had prior vicious propensities.

In so ruling, the trial court had rejected the Plaintiff’s argument, without citation to authority, that the type of dog involved in this case, that is, Akita dogs, are a dangerous, aggressive, territorially breed such that owners should have a heightened knowledge of danger.

Here, the appellate court agreed with the trial court that the record lacked any evidence that the Defendant had knowledge of the dog’s alleged vicious tendencies prior to the alleged incident. In so ruling, the appellate court also ruled that the Plaintiff did not cite to any expert or objective evidence to support her theories with respect to the dog in question.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Thomas McDonnell and Attorney Kasey Cahill from the law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

NEED HELP BRINGING YOUR DOG BITE CASE TO A CLOSE?

PLEASE CONSIDER CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES

 (570) 319-5899

dancummins@CumminsLaw.net