Legal Question in Civil Litigation in Pennsylvania

Re: negligence case

This is an interesting question. I looked to see if I could find any cases on the subject and I couldn't although I did find some early cases on fraud and deceit related to the sale of horses. I don't think there would be much of a chance of prevailing under a fraud theory unless you could show that the owner knew or should have known that the puppy had the virus.

So the only remedies would either be under the "catch all" provision of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law or under contract law. That prohibits at 73 P.S. � 201-2"(xxi) Engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding."

Under that theory, if successful, you could recover under three times your actual damages with a sympathetic court. The private actions section of the act provides at 73 P.S. � 201-9.2 that: "(a) Any person who purchases or leases goods or services primarily for personal, family or household purposes and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by any person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by section 3 of this act, may bring a private action to recover actual damages or one hundred dollars ($ 100), whichever is greater. The court may, in its discretion, award up to three times the actual damages sustained, but not less than one hundred dollars ($ 100), and may provide such additional relief as it deems necessary or proper. The court may award to the plaintiff, in addition to other relief provided in this section, costs and reasonable attorney fees."

However, there may be a question as to whether a "puppy" falls within the definition of "goods or services."

Otherwise the case would fall under Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code and I think the question would be whether or not the veterinarian services would be reasonably foreseeable to the seller.