Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 5, December 2021

Vaccinations Are Mandatory, At Least for Your Dog

Key Points:

  • Negligence per se is an appropriate cause of action where the dog who bites a plaintiff was not vaccinated against rabies. 
  • Owners may be liable, despite not being in control of a dog at the time of a bite, if the dog is not vaccinated against rabies. 
  • Dog bite cases involving unvaccinated dogs may make it easier for a plaintiff to establish liability. 

In 2021, it is difficult to watch the news or utilize any social media without seeing the words “vaccine mandate” within the first three minutes. While the national debate continues for COVID vaccinations, such controversy does not exist in Pennsylvania where dogs are concerned. One recent decision makes that abundantly clear. 

If you defend dog-bite cases, you have seen complaints with allegations that a defendant was negligent for failing to inoculate or vaccinate a dog. These allegations are generally dismissed early on in the case after preliminary objections. The Pennsylvania Dog Law (3 P.S. § 459-305) does not have any such requirements for dog owners. However, the Pennsylvania Rabies Control Act (3 P.S. § 455.8) does. The Rabies Control Act states that an owner or keeper of a dog must vaccinate said dog against rabies within four weeks after the dog is 12 weeks of age, and every 12 to 14 months afterward. Recently, the Honorable David Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas issued an opinion linking the Rabies Control Act and the Dog Law. 

In Philips v. Horvath, et.al., the plaintiff brought a case against the defendants after being bitten by their pit-bull. Mr. Philips was an assistant fire chief, answering a 911 call for a potential fire. After concluding his investigation into the cause of the potential fire, Mr. Philips sought treatment that included six human rabies immunoglobulin and rabies vaccine injections. The complaint included a count of negligence per se. The concept of negligence per se establishes both duty and breach of duty where an individual violates an applicable statute, ordinance or regulation designed to prevent a public harm. In order to prove negligence per se, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the statute must, at least in part, protect the interest of a group of individuals as opposed to the public generally; (2) the statute must clearly apply to the conduct of the defendant; (3) the defendant must violate the statute; and (4) violation of the statute must be the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. 

In Philips, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the Rabies Control Act by not having their dog properly vaccinated. The defendants filed preliminary objections, arguing that the plaintiff’s injury was allegedly caused by the bite itself, not the result of the lack of vaccination or a violation of any other statute, and that the count for negligence per se should be stricken. 

The court agreed with the defendants’ argument that the bite itself and subsequent laceration were not the result of the defendants’ violation of the Rabies Control Act. However, Judge Williamson agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that the need for the additional treatment of six separate injections was caused by the defendants’ failure to abide by the statute. Ultimately, Judge Williamson agreed that the need for the additional injections was an additional injury. 

While it is unclear whether this decision will be challenged in the appellate courts, it sets a new standard for defending dog-bite cases that involve dogs that are not up-to-date on their vaccinations. Under the Pennsylvania Dog Law, an owner or keeper of a dog is required to keep their dog reasonably restrained in order to protect individuals from being bitten. With the addition of a cause of action for negligence per se under the Rabies Control Act, Judge Williamson has arguably removed the burden of proof under the Dog Law for cases where the offending dog is not vaccinated. Under the logic of this opinion, if an unvaccinated dog bites an individual, that dog’s owner or keeper can be held liable for, at the very least, treatments a plaintiff undergoes in order to protect themselves from rabies. 

Additionally, this case may create a scenario where a plaintiff can bring a cause of action of negligence per se against an owner of a dog even if the owner had left the dog in the care of another. Under the Dog Law, this has been and continues to be a valid defense against claims of negligence, as the owner would not be responsible for the dog’s action at the time the dog was in the control of another. However, if the dog is not vaccinated, Judge Williamson’s decision opens the door for a negligence per se count against an owner regardless of who was in charge of the dog at the time of an alleged bite. 

We should all get our animals vaccinated, not only because it is the law in Pennsylvania, but also to protect the health of our animals and those who may be in contact with them. Insurers and their insureds must be more cognizant of the potential ramifications of not vaccinating our pets. One injection to your pet is going to cost significantly less than six injections into a potential plaintiff. 

*Mark is an associate in our Scranton, Pennsylvania, office. He can be reached at 570.496.4663 or mpburns@mdwcg.com.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 5, December 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal 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. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.