Summary Judgment Motion by Out-of-Possession Landlord Defendants Denied in Dog Bite Case

In the case of Eggleston v. Richards, No. 10753 of 2019, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. Sept. 29, 2022 Motto, P.J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion for Summary Judgment in a dog bite case. As part of its decision, the court struck the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

According to the Opinion, the Defendants were out-of-possession landlords who asserted that they could not be held liable for the injuries sustained by the minor Plaintiff because the Defendants did not have actual knowledge of the dog’s alleged dangerous propensities. They also moved for summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages as there was, according to the defense, no evidence of any evil motive or outrageous conduct.

The dog involved was a pit bull named “Smoke” who was owned by a tenant of the Defendants. According to the Opinion, the landlord Defendants were aware that the dog was on the premises.

With regard to the subject incident, the minor Plaintiff was walking in an alley near the property when the pit bull chased the minor in to the woods while biting the minor’s arm and leg, requiring stitches and other medical care for the Plaintiff thereafter.

The court reviewed the law of Pennsylvania regarding the liability of landlords out-of-possession in dog bite cases.

The court found that there were issues of material fact that existed as to whether the landlord out-of-possession had knowledge of the dog’s alleged aggressiveness or propensity to viciousness.  As such, the summary judgment motion was denied in this regard.

According to the record before the court, the landlord visited the premises on numerous occasions and was able to view the dog’s behavior. 

It was noted that, during one incident, when the landlord approached the residence, the dog ran towards the door and was barking, which caused the landlord to step backwards. It was also noted that the tenant would keep the dog away from the landlord for the landlord’s safety whenever the landlord visited the premises. 

There was also evidence that there was a prior incident involving the same dog. Whether or not the landlord Defendant was aware of that prior incident, the court noted that it was otherwise admitted that the landlord and the tenant had numerous conversations in general about the dog.

With regards to the court’s granting of summary judgment relative to the punitive damages claim given the absence of any evidence of evil motive or outrageous conduct, the court noted that the Plaintiff had acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to allow for an award of punitive damages. As such, the Plaintiff had stipulated that the claim for punitive damages should be stricken.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Dale Larrimore of the Philadelphia law firm of Larrymore and Farnish, LLP, for bringing this case to my attention.

Judge Nealon Addresses Potential Liability of Out-of-Possession Landlord in a Dog Bite Case

In the case of Vicki v. Altuner, No. 17-CV-3602 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 12, 2020 Nealon, J.), the court addressed issues of liability with respect to a dog’s owner and an out-of-possession landlord in a case where a jogger was allegedly attacked and bitten by unrestrained pitbulls.

According to the Opinion, there was evidence in the case that the landlord had prior knowledge that the dog had bitten and attacked the landlord’s handyman twenty (20) days since the incident.

The out-of-possession landlord Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that she did not owe any duty of care to the jogger since she did not have any prior knowledge as to the pitbulls’ dangerous propensities. In the alternative, the out-of-possession landlord asserted that she cannot be found to be breached any duty given that she had already initiated an eviction proceeding against the owner for non-payment of rent at the time the tenant’s dog attacked the jogger. 

The Motion for Summary Judgment was denied as the court found that there were issues of fact on the liability questions presented.

Judge Nealon noted that, even though the landlord had already begun eviction proceedings, the landlord also had other avenues available to remove the dogs from the premises after the prior attack upon the handyman, such as seeking immediate injunctive relief or the intervention of a local animal control authority in order to have the dogs removed. Given this issue, and other issues noted in the Opinion, the summary judgment was denied. 

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

Demurrer Denied in Dog Bite Case

In the case of Roegner v. Steezar, No. 2019-CV-929 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Sept. 6, 2019 Nealon, J.), the court addressed Preliminary Objections filed by a dog owner in a dog bite case in which the Defendant filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the action on the grounds that the allegations of the Complaint were legally insufficient to state a claim of negligence against the dog owner.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs were the guests at the property of the Defendants, Joseph Steezar and Maryellen Steezar, when the Plaintiff was suddenly attacked by a pit bull that was owned by Defendant, Ryan Steezar.  

The Plaintiffs filed a premises liability claim against the Steezars and further asserted that Ryan Steezar engaged in negligent conduct, careless conduct, gross, wanton, and reckless conduct for failing to adequately control the pit bull when he knew or should have known that the dog had a tendency to attack and had dangerous propensities.   The Plaintiff additionally alleged that Ryan Steezar had violated the dog law by failing to properly confine, secure or control his dog and/or by harboring a dangerous animal.  

The Defendant dog owner filed a demurrer asserting that Pennsylvania law establishes that no absolute liability can be imposed upon a dog owner for injuries caused by dogs. Rather, proof of the owner’s negligence is required, such as showing that the owner had prior knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities.   

The Defendant asserted a demurrer indicating that the Plaintiff’s Complaint contained no allegations which would allow for the imposition of liability under Pennsylvania law for the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.   

The court agreed with the Defendant that the mere ownership of a dog does not subject a dog owner to absolute liability for injuries caused by the dog.   

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

Judge Nealon referred to the settle law that provides that, for a victim of a dog bit to establish negligence on the part of the dog’s owner, the victim must prove that (1) the dog had dangerous propensities; (2) the owner knew, or had reason to know, that the dog had those dangerous propensities; and (3) the owner failed to exercise reasonable care to secure or control the dog so as to prevent it from injuring another person.  

The court additionally stated that a dog’s dangerous propensity is determined by the dog’s behavior rather than its breed.  It was also noted that a large overly-friendly dog that jumps on to people may be considered to be judged as dangerous as a vicious dog.   

Under Pennsylvania law, there is no distinction between an animal that is dangerous and viciousness and one that this merely dangerous from playfulness.   

Accepting the Plaintiff’s allegations in the Complaint as true as required by the standard of review for a demurrer, the court found that Plaintiff had stated a cognizable cause of action in negligence against the dog owner.  

As such, the demurrer was denied and the court suggested that the Defendant could revisit the issue once discovery is completed.  

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

Summary Judgment for Defense Reversed in Dog Bite Case

In the case of Franciscus v. Sevdik, No. 1699 WDA 2014, 2016 Pa. Super. 52 (Pa. Super. Feb. 29, 2016 Bowes, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of a Defendant pet-sitter in a dog bite case.  

According to the Opinion, the Defendant pet-sitting company was walking an owner’s pitbull when the dog bit the Plaintiff’s daughter, who had asked to pet the dog.   The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of the pet-sitting Defendants after finding that there was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the company had any knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities.  

The Superior Court disagreed and found that there was sufficient evidence to reasonable infer that the pet-sitting Defendants were aware of the dog’s dangerous propensities.   In so ruling, the Superior Court initially noted the law that a dangerous propensities in a dog was not limited to viciousness but, more generally, to a propensity for the dog to injure a person, whether the dog’s attack was motivated by viciousness or playfulness.  

In this matter, the court noted that the owner of the dog had filled out a form for the pet-sitting Defendant in which the owner advised that the dog be walked with a muzzle and not be walked down routes where the dog would encounter other dogs or children.   The dog did not have a muzzle on at the time of the incident and the pet-sitting company allowed the child to approach the dog at the time of the incident.

As such, the entry of summary judgment by the trial court was reversed.  

The court in Franciscus went on to note that, given that it had already resolved the issue before it, it did not need to reach the issue of whether or the trial court erred in refusing to take judicial notice of the dangerous propensities of pitbulls in general.   The Superior Court did note that Pennsylvania law did not distinguish between breeds of dog as having any particular dangerous propensities per se.   The court noted that, under Pennsylvania law, the breed of dog involved typically only comes into play after it is established that the dog at issue had already exhibited dangerous behavior.  

 The Pennsylvania Superior Court also noted that Pennsylvania courts had specifically declined to adopt the proposition of the Restatement of Torts that there be strict liability for an owner of a dog already determined to be dangerous based upon a previous incident.  

 

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this Link.

 

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 15, 2016).