According to the Opinion, both dogs were wearing pronged collars and were on leashes at the park. At the Plaintiffs’ suggestion, after asking the Defendant dog owners if their two dogs were “good dogs,” all of the parties’ dogs were let off of their leashes and allowed to run and play with each other in the dog park.
The court noted that, at her deposition, the Plaintiff admitted that the dog at issue did not attack her. Also, when asked if there was anything she believed that the Defendants should have done differently before the dogs ran into her, the Plaintiff responded in the negative.
After discovery was completed, the Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment at issue.
In addition to alleging negligence, the Plaintiffs asserted that, even though she invited the Defendants’ dogs to go unleashed, the Defendants still had a duty to warn the Plaintiff on whether the Defendants’ dogs would be controllable while unleashed and/or whether the dogs posed a serious threat to the safety of others in their vicinity.
The Plaintiffs further alleged that the Defendants knew that the dogs allegedly had dangerous propensities and that the dogs should not be allowed to be off-leash. The Plaintiff based this allegation on the fact that the Defendants knew that their dogs pulled on their leashes before and given that the Defendants used pronged collars on their dogs to help mitigate the pulling.
The court found that neither of these acts, in isolation or together, showed any tendency on the part of the Defendants’ dogs to do an act that might endanger the safety of the person and property of others. The court otherwise noted that the Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to support allegations that the dogs in question had dangerous propensities of which the Defendants were aware.
The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s attempt to prove negligence under the Dog Law. The court noted that where proof of negligence rests upon a violation of the Dog Law, liability does not attach unless causation is also established. The court noted that the record was devoid of evidence to support a finding of negligence under the Dog Law.
Accordingly, the court rendered summary judgment in favor of the Defendants dog owners.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 7, 2025).
Source of image: Photo by Rui Alves on www.unsplash.com.