Luzerne County Court Denies Amendment to Add Punitive Damages for Post-Incident Conduct in Dog-Bite Case

The plaintiff sought the amend her complaint to add a claim of negligence per se, to add a theory of joint and several liability against both defendants and, most notably, to include a claim for punitive damages for post-incident conduct by the defendants relative to the dog-bite incident. 

The Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, holding that punitive damages are not available for tortfeasor’s post-incident conduct. In support of this holding, it cited to substantive state case law, which held that a fact-finder may impose punitive damages for torts, as opposed to any post-incident conduct, and that one must look to the act itself together with all circumstances, including the motives of the wrongdoers and the relationships between the parties when imposing punitive damages.
 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2025 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 © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}