The Plaintiff alleged that he was attacked by the Defendant’s dog, as a result of which the Plaintiff had to seek out treatment, including receiving six (6) rabies injections.
The Defendants filed Preliminary Objections, in part, against the Plaintiff’s claims of negligence per se based upon an allegation that the facts confirmed a violation of the Pennsylvania Rabies Control Act. The Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection stating that this claims should be dismissed on the basis that the Plaintiffs failed to allege an injury that was proximately related to that alleged violation of that Act.
The Defendants claimed that the Plaintiff has failed to show that the failure on the part of the Plaintiff to vaccinate their dog from rabies resulted in injuries to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff countered with the argument that part of the alleged injuries sustained involving the Plaintiff having received rabies shots as a result of the bite, which resulted in thousands of dollars’ worth of medical records as well as emotional distress related to the fear of contracting rabies.
Judge Williamson sided with the Plaintiff. The court found that the Plaintiff was not arguing that the dog bite itself was negligence per se but rather the failure to the Defendants to vaccinate the dog and with respect to the separate injuries that resulted to the Plaintiff in addition to the dog bite itself.
Judge David J. Williamson Monroe County |
Judge Williamson noted that the Plaintiff was not arguing that ‘but for the Defendants’ failure to follow the act he would not have been bitten,’ but rather, the Plaintiff was arguing that ‘but for the Act not be followed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff would not have had to receive six (6) injections to prevent a possible rabies exposure, sustain a monetary loss associated with those injections, and would not have sustained emotional distress from having to worry about contracting rabies.’
As such, the court denied Defendants’ Preliminary Objections.
Notably, the court also found that the facts alleged were sufficient to support the Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages. The court found facts in the Complaint that supported claims of an outrageous act and/or recklessness.
The court found that the nature of these alleged acts or omissions could be construed as a reckless disregard for the safety of others and could be considered outrageous in the context of a claim for punitive damages.
As such, the Defendants’ demurrer asserted against the punitive damages claim was overruled.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Thomas J. Newell of Newell Law for bringing this case to my attention.