DOG BITE. $______ VERDICT

• Pages: 18-19

plaintiffs maintained that the defendant was negli-

gent in permitting a tenant to keep a vicious dog on

the property in violation of stipulations of the lease,

failing to take all necessary and reasonable precau-

tions to ensure the safety of the tenants, despite hav-

ing knowledge that a vicious and unrestrained dog

was on the property and failing to have the dog

removed or take repossession of the apartment.

The minor plaintiff suffered lacerations to her fore-

head, nose and left forearm. The plaintiff’s father suf-

fered a severe dog bite to the hand that required

surgical debridement. The defendant landlord de-

nied all allegations of negligence and brought in the

dog owners as additional defendants, alleging that

they failed to properly restrain their dog. In addition,

the defendant landlord brought in the minor’smother

and father as additional defendants, alleging that

they failed to properly supervise their child and also

that these defendants also harbored a dangerous

dog on their property who got into a fight with the

other dog, which caused the incident.

The jury found no negligence against the defendant

landlord.

REFERENCE

Adam Lang, an adult individual in his own right and

as guardian and father of Peyton Lang and Peyton

Lang, a minor vs. Edward Lauer. Case no. GD-12-

023073; Judge Michael DellaVecchia, 10-28-15.

Attorney for plaintiff: John Adamczyk in Pittsburgh,

PA. Attorney for defendant: Sean O’Connell of Robb

Leonard Mulvihill LLP in Pittsburgh, PA.

$500 RECOVERY

Dog attack – Defendant’s two dogs attack and

bite the plaintiffs as plaintiffs attempt to walk their

dog by the defendant’s house – Failure to

properly secure dangerous dogs – Emotional

distress to two minor boys.

Montgomery County, PA

This personal injury settlement action results from

an incident that occurred when the plaintiffs were

walking their dog past the defendant’s house and

the defendant’s two dogs attacked their dog. As

the plaintiff mother attempted to stop the attack,

the defendant’s dogs starting attacking the

plaintiff mother. The defendants denied that the

incident occurred as alleged by the plaintiffs and

denied all allegations of negligence.

On April 19, 2014, the two minor males were walking

with their mother and their dog past the defendant’s

house when the defendant’s two pit bulls charged

the plaintiffs. The defendant’s dog attacked the plain-

tiff’s dog and when the plaintiff mother attempted to

stop the attack, the dogs bit and attacked the plain-

tiff mother. The plaintiffs sued the defendants. The

plaintiff mother sued for physical injuries she sustained

in the attack and that case was handled out of court.

This settlement is for the emotional injuries sustained

by the two minor plaintiffs who witnessed the event.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were negli-

gent in harboring dangerous dogs, failing to warn of

the dog’s vicious tendencies, failing to adequately

secure the dangerous dogs and allowing the dogs to

roam free without adequate safeguards. The minor

boys suffered emotional distress, extreme fear of

dogs and anxiety. The defendants denied all allega-

tions of negligence, denied that the incident oc-

curred as alleged and argued that the actions of the

plaintiffs provoked the dogs.

The parties settled and each minor received $250 for

their emotional injuries.

REFERENCE

Aaron and Evan Lang, minors by and through their

png Holly Lang vs. Eric Stimmler. Case no. 2014-

33424; Judge Robert Haaz, 08-27-15.

Attorney for plaintiff: Leno Thomas of Solomon,

Berschler, Fabick, Campbell & Thomas, P.C. in

Norristown, PA. Attorney for defendant: Joseph

Pulcini of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP in Allentown,

PA.

DOG BITE

$4,000 VERDICT

Dog Bite – Defendant’s dog attacks and bites the

plaintiff in an unprovoked attack – Failure to

properly restrain or muzzle the dog – Bite wounds

to the right arm – Neck, back and shoulder

sprains and strains.

Philadelphia County, PA

The plaintiff in this dog bite action maintained

that he was walking by the defendant’s

commercial property when he was attacked by the

defendant’s dog. The defendant denied all

18 VERDICTS BY CATEGORY

Volume 35, Issue 4, March 2017 Subscribe Now