DEFENDANT’S Dog Attack – Plaintiff walking by the defendant’s premises when defendant’s dog charged that plaintiff and attacked – Failure to properly secure dog – Multiple puncture wounds and lacerations to the body.

Philadelphia County, PA

In this negligence action, the plaintiff maintained that while she was walking by the defendant’s property, the defendant’s dog attacked the plaintiff in an unprovoked incident. The defendants denied being negligent and maintained that the plaintiff entered the property and provoked the dog.

On November 14th, ________, the female plaintiff was walking by the premises that the defendant, Jones, shared with defendant, Diaz, that was owned by the defendant, Nowicki. The Jones defendant owned a dog that lived with him at the premises. While the plaintiff was walking by the defendant’s property, the dog charged out the gate and attacked the plaintiff.

According to the plaintiff, the defendants were negligent in keeping a dangerous dog on the premises, failing to guard against the misconduct of the dog, failing to properly secure the dog, failing to properly secure the dog in the enclosure. As a result, she suffered puncture wounds, as well as lacerations and abrasions to her right arm, buttocks, and right thigh. In addition, she suffered severe emotional distress and permanent scarring. The defendant dog owners denied all liability and argued that the plaintiff traveled inside the gate and was trespassing when the incident occurred.The jury found that the plaintiff did not prove that the dog was outside the gate of the premises, and therefore rendered a defense verdict. The Diaz defendant was never served and the Nowicki defendant was granted a non suit.