Franciscus, J. v. Sevdik, T.
135 A.3d 1092
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Parents sued Tolga Sevdik, Ashley Dailey, and John Steigerwald for injuries to minor Femina from Julius the pit bull in Allegheny County; dog was being walked by Dailey for Fetch Pet Care (Steigerwald’s business); trial court granted summary judgment for the Pet Care defendants; case against Sevdik proceeded to arbitration resulting in a $4,000 award to Parents; on appeal, the Superior Court vacated the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings; the court considered evidence suggesting knowledge of dangerous propensities and Pet Care’s duty to exercise reasonable care while the dog was in custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly considered evidence of notice of dangerous propensities | Parents argue Pet Care knew or should have known of Julius’s dangerous propensities | Pet Care contends no knowledge of dangerous propensities and duties are limited to landlord-like non-possession liability | Summary judgment improper; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether the Pet Care defendants were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law | There was evidence of dangerous propensities and knowledge by Dailey/Sevdik | No evidence Pet Care knew of danger or could control the dog | No clear entitlement to summary judgment; issue for remand |
| What evidence shows treatment gap between pet service and owner liability | Pet Care had duty due to custody/control and knowledge of risk | Rosenberry rationale limits landlord out-of-possession liability | Record evidence creates triable issue on Pet Care’s liability |
| Whether pit bull breed has an established dangerous propensity as a matter of law | Breed-specific danger acknowledged by Plaintiffs’ authorities | Pennsylvania does not adopt breed-specific presumption of danger | No breed-based presumption; court remands for further proceedings; no per se dangerous breed rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinley v. Bierly, 876 A.2d 419 (Pa. Super. 2005) (liability for negligent handling of animals with dangerous propensities)
- Deardorff v. Burger, 606 A.2d 489 (Pa. Super. 1992) (dog owner liable for known dangerous propensities; custodians owe duty)
- Rosenberry v. Evans, 48 A.3d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2012) (landlord out-of-possession liability not imposed absent knowledge/control of dangerous animal)
- McCloud v. McLaughlin, 837 A.2d 541 (Pa. Super. 2003) (negligence as vehicle to hold liable for dog bites; no absolute strict liability)
- Bonavitacola v. Cluver, 619 A.2d 1363 (Pa. Super. 1993) (arbitration-final pronouncement treated for purposes of appeal)
- Johnson the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Constr. Corp., 657 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. 1995) (judicial-economy principle; “regard as done that which ought to have been done” when arbitration finalizes matter)
- K.H. v. J.R., 826 A.2d 863 (Pa. 2003) (premature appeal; final arbitration verdict may render appeal proper)
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment; de novo for legal questions)