An unexcused violation of the Dangerous Dog Law constituted negligence per se where plaintiffs suffered an unprovoked attack by defendants' dog. Plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to support their punitive damages claims.
April 21, 2015 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
TORTS
Personal Injury • Dangerous Dog Law • Negligence Per Se
Harrison v. Haueisen, PICS Case No. 15-0607 (C.P. Lycoming April 2, 2015) Gray, J. (7 pages).
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
The Court of Appeal, First Appellate District in San Francisco is accepting applications for a full-time regular Judicial Secretary I, Judic...
The County is looking for a skilled and seasoned County Attorney to oversee the Law Department in delivering top-tier legal services, repres...
Position Summary: The Corporate General Counsel will manage and coordinate all legal and compliance matters affecting the company. The Gen...
