TITLE 3.  AGRICULTURE

o:p> 

CHAPTER 8.  DOGS

 

DOG LAW

 

ARTICLE I.  SHORT TITLE AND DEFINITIONS

 

3 P.S. §  459-101 (2002)

 

§  459-101.  Short title

 

   This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Dog Law."

 

LexisNexis (TM) Notes: CASE NOTES TREATISES AND ANALYTICAL MATERIALS

 

 

CASE NOTES

Governments : Local Governments : Police Power

 

Governments : State & Territorial Governments : Relations With Governments

 

Torts : Negligence : Duty : Animal Owners

 

 

 

Governments : Local Governments : Police Power

 

1. Kennel owner was properly restricted in the number of dogs owner could house at her residence because owner's kennel license issued by the state did not preempt the city from enforcing its own animal control law. Muehlieb v. City of Phila., 133 Pa. Commw. 133, 574 A.2d 1208, 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 286 (1990).

 

Governments : State & Territorial Governments : Relations With Governments

 

2. Kennel owner was properly restricted in the number of dogs owner could house at her residence because owner's kennel license issued by the state did not preempt the city from enforcing its own animal control law. Muehlieb v. City of Phila., 133 Pa. Commw. 133, 574 A.2d 1208, 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 286 (1990).

 

Torts : Negligence : Duty : Animal Owners

 

3. No matter how innocent the victim may be or how serious the injury sustained, the owner of a dog is not responsible for the consequences of the dog's bite if the owner has no reason to know the viciousness or dangerous propensities of the dog beforehand even though the owner violated the Dog Law of Pennsylvania as codified at former 3 P.S. 460-1205 (now 3 P.S. §  459-101 et seq.). Freeman v. Terzya, 229 Pa. Super. 254, 323 A.2d 186, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2186 (1974).

 

 

TREATISES AND ANALYTICAL MATERIALS

 

1. P.L.E. ANIMALS §  2, Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, VOLUME 1e, §  2 Dog Licensing, Copyright 2002, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group.   

 

TITLE 3.  AGRICULTURE

 

CHAPTER 8.  DOGS

 

DOG LAW

 

ARTICLE V.  OFFENSES OF DOGS

 

3 P.S. §  459-502 (2002)  

§  459-502.  Dog bites; detention and isolation of dogs

 

   (a) CONFINEMENT.--ANY DOG WHICH BITES OR ATTACKS A HUMAN BEING SHALL BE CONFINED IN QUARTERS APPROVED BY A DESIGNATED EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, A STATE DOG WARDEN OR EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER OR A POLICE OFFICER. SUCH DOG MAY BE DETAINED AND ISOLATED IN AN APPROVED KENNEL OR AT THE DOG OWNER'S PROPERTY. WHERE SUCH DOG IS DETAINED IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. ALL DOGS SO DETAINED MUST BE ISOLATED FOR A MINIMUM OF TEN DAYS. ANY COSTS INCURRED IN THE DETAINING AND ISOLATION OF SUCH DOG SHALL BE PAID BY THE OFFENDING DOG'S OWNER. WHEN THE DOG'S OWNER IS NOT KNOWN, THE COMMONWEALTH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL REASONABLE COSTS FOR HOLDING AND DETAINING SUCH DOG.

 

   (b) BITE VICTIMS.--THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING THE BITE VICTIM OF THE MEDICAL RESULTS OF THE OFFENDING DOG'S CONFINEMENT. ANY COST TO THE VICTIM FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT RESULTING FROM AN ATTACKING OR BITING DOG MUST BE PAID FULLY BY THE OWNER OF SUCH DOG. THE COMMONWEALTH SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT COSTS TO THE VICTIM.

 

   (c) EXCEPTION.--WHEN A DOG THAT BITES OR ATTACKS A HUMAN BEING IS A SERVICE DOG OR A POLICE WORK DOG IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES, SAID DOG NEED NOT BE CONFINED IF IT IS UNDER THE ACTIVE SUPERVISION OF A LICENSED DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE. 

 

LexisNexis (TM) Notes:

 

CASE NOTES

 

Governments : Agriculture & Food : Animal Protection

 

1. The court affirmed the determination that although a dog attacked a little girl without provocation causing severe injuries, the dog could not be a declared danger under 3 P.S. §  459-502; the incident giving rise to the filing of the original complaint could not alone establish the dog's history or propensity to attack. Eritano v. Commonwealth, 547 Pa. 372, 690 A.2d 705, 1997 Pa. LEXIS 439 (1997).