As a young lad in law school (OK, I wasn’t that young), my torts law professor had talked generally about “strict liability” for dog bites, which may be true in some states, but not in Pennsylvania. Nor is it true in Pennsylvania that a dog gets “one free bite.”
Here’s the skinny on dog bite law in Pa:
Pennsylvania does have something akin to strict liability for cases involve serious injuries (though a defense still exists if the dog is antagonized). Otherwise, PA does not impose absolute liability on an owner for dog attacks, not even with respect to a dog having vicious tendencies of which the owner is aware; proof of negligence, in contrast to holding one absolutely liable, is the vehicle by which accountability for injury sustained because of a dog bite is required to be established.
1. Medical Costs.
“Any cost to the victim for medical treatment resulting from an attacking or biting dog must be paid fully by the owner or keeper of the dog. The Commonwealth shall not be liable for medical treatment costs to the victim.” 3 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 459-502 (West).
2. Pennsylvania Dog Law.
Under the Pennsylvania Dog Law, the owner or keeper of any dog is required at all times to keep the dog either: (1) confined within the premises of the owner; (2) firmly secured by means of a collar and chain or other device so that it cannot stray beyond the premises on which it is secured; or (3) under the reasonable control of some person.
The requirements of the Dog Law concerning the confinement and control of dogs have been adopted as the standard for determining whether a person has complied with the common-law duty to exercise ordinary care with respect to ownership and control of a dog, and an unexcused violation of the Dog Law constitutes negligence per se. 2 Summ. Pa. Jur. 2d Torts § 26:6.
The Dangerous Dog Statute itself is criminal in nature and does not provide for private recovery. 3 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 459-502A (West). Although there is a lack of higher authority on applying negligence per se to the dangerous dog statute, Allegheny County has refused to do so. Kormos v. Urban, 2005 WL 3970805.
Aside from the provision in 3 Pa. Stat. Ann. §459-502, Dog Law does not provide much cause of action for our client, however, you may be able to rely on a possessor’s of land duty to make safe for a licensee:
3. The Common Law (or Case Law).
Pennsylvania courts have adopted the language of the Restatement Second, Torts on the duties of possessors of land to licensees. Under the Restatement Second, Torts, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to licensees by a condition on the land if, but only if: (1) the possessor knows or has reason to know of the condition and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such licensees and should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger; (2) he or she fails to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to warn the licensees of the condition and the risk involved; and (3) the licensees do not know or have reason to know of the condition and the risk involved. 3 Summ. Pa. Jur. 2d Torts § 39:31.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking my law school education, especially since students need to know the law generally across the USA, because not all lawyers practice in the state where they attended law school. But it is through regular practice in any given area that a lawyer hones his craft and understanding of one state’s law and its nuances. Our firm is no stranger to dog bite cases.
Feel free to call us for representation or to share an experience about a dog bite case or some nuance of the law.
