In non-precedential decision, Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled that summary judgment was precluded when questions of fact existed relative to a dog’s vicious tendencies, owner’s knowledge of these tendencies, and precautions taken by the owner.

While visiting the defendant’s home, the plaintiff sustained injuries when the defendant’s pit bull mix attacked him. During her deposition, the defendant testified that her dog did not like people approaching her and that she instructed people not to approach the dog. The defendant also testified that she put “Beware of Dog” signs in her driveway leading up to her home because of the breed’s reputation. After the completion of discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reasoned that to prevail in a dog bite case, there must be evidence to establish: (1) the dog displays vicious tendencies; (2) the animal’s owner has reason to know or actually knows that the animal has those dangerous propensities; and (3) the owner failed to act prudently in response to those propensities. The Superior Court held that the trial court failed to view all the evidence and draw inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as the non-movant. In applying the well-settled summary judgment legal standard, the Superior Court ruled that there were questions of fact as to whether the pit bull mix dog had vicious tendencies, whether the defendant was aware of any such tendencies, and whether the defendant took proper precautions. The Superior Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case.

^{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}