Rosenberry v. Evans, 48 A.3d 1255

Mother sues Landlord for negligence after her minor son was bitten by a dog on premises leased by Landlord's tenant.
The dog (Raven) belonged to Tanya Evans, mother of the tenant’s girlfriend; the incident occurred during a puppy-picking visit by Alexander and his grandparents.
Witnesses described Raven as friendly; the bite involved a clenching of the nose and a visible tic in Raven's jaw.
Landlord moved for summary judgment, arguing no evidence of dangerous propensities or Landlord’s knowledge of any danger.
The trial court granted summary judgment in Landlord’s favor, concluding no dangerous propensity and no knowledge by Landlord.
Mother appeals, asserting Nanty-Glo issues and facts showing dangerous propensities and Landlord’s knowledge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court correctly found no genuine issue on Raven's dangerous propensities.	Mother argues Raven had a tic and clenching propensity that could render her dangerous, creating a factual issue.	Landlord argues the dog lacked dangerous propensities and witnesses described a gentle dog.	Genuine issues exist regarding Raven's dangerous propensities; Nanty-Glo analysis not dispositive for this issue.
Whether Landlord had actual knowledge of Raven's dangerous propensities.	Mother contends knowledge could be inferred from agents or imputed to Landlord and from rumors.	Landlord did not have actual knowledge; knowledge cannot be imputed from limited handyman activities or hearsay rumors.	No evidence of actual knowledge; imputing knowledge from agents or rumors was insufficient; duty not established.
Whether Landlord owed a duty to the minor based on knowledge of a dangerous animal on leased premises.	Mother asserts Landlord’s duty arises from actual knowledge and control over premises with a dangerous dog.	Without actual knowledge and control, no duty attaches under Pennsylvania law.	Duty requires actual knowledge; court affirmed summary judgment on lack of knowledge, though issues of dangerous propensity remained.

Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co. of New York, 309 Pa. 236, 163 A.2d 523 (Pa. 1932) (directed verdicts based solely on oral testimony require jury-laid determinations; Nanty-Glo rule applies to summary judgment)
Bremmer v. Protected Home Mut. Life Ins. Co., 436 Pa. 494, 260 A.2d 785 (Pa. 1970) (Nanty-Glo rule extends to summary judgment; credibility remains jury issue)
Penn Center House, Inc. v. Hoffman, 520 Pa. 171, 553 A.2d 900 (Pa. 1989) (affidavits from moving party alone insufficient for summary judgment; credibility question persists)
Palermo v. Nails, 334 Pa. Super. 544, 483 A.2d 871 (Pa. Super. 1984) (actual knowledge of a dangerous animal triggers duty; imputed knowledge not sufficient)
Underwood ex rel. Underwood v. Wind, 954 A.2d 1199 (Pa. Super. 2008) (improper jury instruction can create reversible error; actual knowledge required for duty)
Groner v. Hedrick, 403 Pa. 148, 169 A.2d 302 (Pa. 1961) (dangerous propensities include playful or mischievous acts; mood immaterial)
Clark v. Clark, 207 Pa. Super. 193, 215 A.2d 293 (Pa. Super. 1965) (broad interpretation of dangerous propensities; not limited to viciousness)
Johnson v. Johnson, 410 Pa. Super. 631, 600 A.2d 965 (Pa. Super. 1991) (co-defendants adverse for Nanty-Glo purposes; need actual adversity for testimony to count)
Zator v. Coachi, 939 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 2007) (summary judgment proper where record fails to show prima facie claim or defense)