Legal Opinion

Eritano v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 25, 1997PublishedCited by 12 opinions

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

  1. Com., Dept. of Transp. v. TarnopolskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. Andrews v. Smith Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Groner v. HedrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  4. Commonwealth v. JennerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HenniganSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Koken v. Reliance InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Commonwealth v. HakeCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Commonwealth v. BaldwinCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. G.G. Skotnicki v. Insurance DepartmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API