Dog bite litigation, breed biases and Pennsylvania laws
Pennsylvania law addresses these negative interactions through both civil and criminal statutes, as well as regulation of the insurance industry when it comes to specific restrictions.
Dogs are ubiquitous to life in the United States, with the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) stating that over 48 million American households have one or more dogs. Although graced with the label “Man’s Best Friend,” dogs can become a nuisance when they interact with the human population or other pets in an aggressive manner.
Pennsylvania law addresses these negative interactions various ways through both civil and criminal statutes, as well as particular regulation of the insurance industry when it comes to specific restrictions.
Pennsylvania’s dangerous dog law, 3 P.S. Section 459-502-A, allows criminal liability for the owner of a dog who has attacked or inflicted severe injury on a human without provocation or killed or inflicted severe injury on a domestic animal, dog or cat without provocation while off the owner’s property. Any propensity to attack on the part of the dog may, but not shall, be proven by a single incident. A conviction under this chapter requires the owner of the dog to keep the dog confined, register the dog with the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement, post their property with a warning symbol, permanently identify the dog with a microchip, have the dog sterilized, as well obtain a surety bond in the amount of $50,000 and a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $50,000. See Section 459-503-A(a). Muzzling is also necessary when the dog is not confined. See Section 459-504-A. A second conviction under the Dangerous Dog Law for the same dog results in the dog being destroyed. See Section 459-505-A(a.1).
A key component of the dangerous dog law is provocation. The dog who is provoked to bite or to injure an individual is not considered a dangerous dog under this statute. While provocation can include what humans typical consider provoking behavior—hitting, injuring, or otherwise making physical contact with a dog—case law indicates that other behavior may be included in this definition. Notably, in at least one case, what is considered provoking to the dog must be viewed through the lens of the dog itself, and not what the human would consider reasonably provoking behavior. See Aegis Security Insurance Company v. Pennsylvania Insurance Department, 798 A.2d 300, 332-4 (provocation was found: when a dog bit a person who entered a gate marked “Beware of Dog” and ignored signs to ring bell; when a child was bitten when it approached a dog that had just been given its dinner; when a state trooper approached a property in a direction the dog was not used to seeing people approach and the trooper waived a leather portfolio when the dog got close to him). Specifically, the Aegis court stated that “the record reflects that the dog, Heidi, was provoked when the trooper passed a ‘No Trespassing’ sign, appeared to Heidi to be someone who did not belong and made what Heidi interpreted as a threatening gesture.”
Civilly speaking, the plaintiff in a dog bite case must prove that the dog owner was negligent in order to recover. Pennsylvania does not recognize absolute liability in these cases. “The commonwealth does not impose absolute liability on the owner for dog attacks. … ‘We are convinced that 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 to be established.’” See Underwood v. Wind, 954 A.2d 1199, 1204 (Pa.Super. 2008), quoting McCloud v. McLaughlin, 837 A.2d 541, 544. (Pa.Super. 2003).
Common in modern American society is the belief that one certain breed, or collection of breeds, are responsible for more incidences of canine aggression than other breeds. Which breed or groups of breeds are blamed changes over time, with breeds such as German Shepherd Dogs, Rottweilers, Dalmatians, Siberian Huskies and Doberman Pinschers all at one point being labeled as inherently dangerous breeds.
The AVMA and the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB), opposes foisting the “aggressive dog” label on any one breed or multiple as it is inaccurate and inherently problematic for multiple reasons.
Firstly, identification of the offending dog is often done solely by visual characteristics. Identification of any dog breed by visual characteristics alone is difficult to impossible even for experts such as veterinarians and behaviorists. The AVSAB has found that a dog’s physical appearance does not necessarily correspond with its genetic composition. See AVSAB 2014 Position Statement on Breed Specific Legislation. Dog DNA tests have revealed that even those who are experienced at identifying dogs, such as dog trainers, breeders, animal control officers, and shelter workers are unable to reliably identify dogs visually.
Secondly, statistics on dog bites are often unreliable because they are gathered from individual reports or media articles. When even veterinarians cannot reliably identify a breed from visual characteristics, inaccuracy abounds when relying on the layperson’s opinion.
Thirdly, many statistics involving dog bites or dog aggression use specific breed names for some dogs who injured a human and more general labels for others. Although used as if it is a single dog breed, the term “pit bull,” for example, is actually a general grouping of multiple breeds under one collective noun. Just as the term “husky” is a general term for dog breeds from polar regions, such as Siberian husky, Alaskan husky, Alaskan malamute, Samoyed, etc., the term “pit bull” encompasses multiple breeds. The American Kennel Club (AKC) does not recognize a “pit bull” as a breed unto itself. According to the AKC, the breeds collectively known as “pit bulls” were originally limited to four different ones: the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Bull Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier of the American Kennel Club and the American Pit Bull Terrier of the United Kennel Club. Informal usage, however, has expanded the term “pit bull” to include just about any dog with a blocky head and good muscling, resulting in dozens of dog breeds being called a “pit bull,” including Boxers, American Bulldogs, Cane Corsos, Rottweilers, all types of mastiffs, and even smaller dogs like Boston Terriers and French Bulldogs.
Fourthly, recent dog behavior research has determined that dog aggression is highly context-dependent behavior with many factors. These factors are highly specific to the individual dog and include sex, neutering status, as well as socialization level and training methods used. Breed or breed type is a poor predictor of aggression or dog bites. See AVMA “The Role of Breed in Dog Bite Risk and Prevention,” published May 15, 2014.
Pennsylvania law follows this research, forbidding municipalities from enacting legislation dealing with dogs that may prohibit or limit a specific breed of dog. Pennsylvania law also prohibits insurance companies from disallowing coverage from any specific breed of dog.
According to veterinary and behavioral experts in the area, blaming the individual breed as opposed to the general breed is a more effective approach to regulation of dog aggression.
Rebecca Glenn-Dinwoodie is the principal attorney of Glenn-Dinwoodie Law. She concentrates her practice of all phases of animal law and family law. She has represented animal welfare organizations on the local, state and national level and briefed the Pennsylvania legislature and members of Congress on legal issues with animals. She has lectured on legal topics relating to Pennsylvania animal cruelty and animal law and related civil litigation. She is admitted to the bars of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.