Eritano v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ZAPPALA, Justice.
The question posed by this appeal is whether a dog that had not previously demonstrated any vicious propensities may be declared “dangerous” pursuant to the Dangerous Dog section of the Dog Law, 3 P.S. § 459-502-A,1 after the dog bit a child and caused severe injury.
The record establishes that on September 2, 1991, Appellants, Joseph and Pamela Eritano, permitted their children Joshua, age fifteen, and Lauren, age five, to visit the home of Appellees, Brad and Marlene Figley. While there, Lauren was given a piece of chicken by the Figleys’ daughter, Nicole. As Lauren…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Com., Dept. of Transp. v. TarnopolskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Andrews v. Smith Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Groner v. HedrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Commonwealth v. JennerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
3Cited by12 opinions
- Commonwealth v. HenniganSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Koken v. Reliance InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Commonwealth v. HakeCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Commonwealth v. BaldwinCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- G.G. Skotnicki v. Insurance DepartmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.