WILLIAMSPORT – A Williamsport woman has, for now, discontinued her lawsuit alleging that the local Society for the Protection of Animals failed to warn her that the dog she was adopting had aggressive tendencies and a result, after bringing the dog home, it attacked her cat.
Codyann Vaughn first filed suit in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 17, 2023 versus the Lycoming County SPCA. Both parties are of Williamsport.
“On Jan. 15, 2022, plaintiff contacted defendant, submitted an application, and indicated her interest in adopting a dog that was safe with cats in a household where plaintiff owned a cat. Subsequently, defendant contacted plaintiff and suggested she come in to meet a one-year-old mixed breed dog named ‘Robbie’, in order to adopt it. Accordingly, plaintiff met ‘Robbie’ on April 21, 2022, and was assured by a staff member in person that ‘Robbie’ had been tested with cats and was safe, and so plaintiff agreed to adopt him, placing a deposit on him. In the mid-afternoon of April 22, 2022, plaintiff went to defendant, paid the remaining adoption fee, completed all required paperwork, and took ‘Robbie’ home,” the suit said.
“Unbeknownst to plaintiff at the time and not discovered until days later, defendant emailed her at approximately 4:30 p.m., thanking her for being so interested in adopting ‘Robbie’ but informing her that ‘the team at Lycoming County SPCA feels that Robbie is not the best fit for your family.’ No further explanation was given by defendant in this email and no one on behalf of defendant attempted to contact plaintiff by phone despite having her phone number. Upon information and belief, at the time that defendant permitted plaintiff to adopt ‘Robbie’, defendant was aware that the dog was ‘not the best fit for her family’ and was aware that ‘Robbie’ was possessive and was reportedly jealous over a small child in his former home. But defendant still permitted plaintiff to adopt ‘Robbie.”
The suit added that upon bringing Robbie home, the plaintiff kept him downstairs and her cat upstairs, in order to not stress her cat with the new addition to the household. At around noon on April 24, 2022, just two days after he was adopted, ‘Robbie’ was taken out on a leash by the plaintiff’s adult daughter, while the cat came downstairs.
“When plaintiff’s daughter and ‘Robbie’ re-entered plaintiff’s house, ‘Robbie’ spotted plaintiff’s cat and immediately attacked it snapping the leash, physically striking the cat repeatedly and injuring it, and causing veterinary care and expenses. Plaintiff attempted to save her cat from the attack, but she was unable to pull ‘Robbie’ off, when the dog lunged back into her right leg with his full force and body weight causing a tibial plateau fracture to her right leg and injuring her right wrist. Defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff. Defendant breached the duty of care to plaintiff as related in this complaint,” the suit stated.
“The negligence and recklessness of defendant includes, but is not limited to, the following: a) Failing to alert plaintiff of ‘Robbie’s’ dangerous propensities, and in fact affirmatively representing that ‘Robbie’ was safe and tested with cats; b) Adopting ‘Robbie’ to plaintiff with no warning of his known dangerous propensities and that he was not the best fit for her home; c) Representing that ‘Robbie’ was a good fit for plaintiff’s home, by temperament and history when defendant knew that he was not; and d) Failing to timely and adequately warn plaintiff to return ‘Robbie’ and to be aware of his dangerous proclivities after it concluded that Robbie was not a good fit for plaintiff’s home.”
On Oct. 6, 2023, the Lycoming County SPCA filed an answer and new matter in the case, which contradicted the plaintiff’s portrayal of the events in question. Specifically, the group denied sending the plaintiff any email indicating that it believed Robbie would not be the best fit for plaintiff’s family.
“By way of further answer, on April 8, 2022, plaintiff submitted her adoption application for Robbie through the ‘AdoPets’ online portal. AdoPets is a program used by the SPCA to process its adoption paperwork. Plaintiff chose to complete her adoption of Robbie in-person and, thus, plaintiff’s online adoption application was archived on April 22, 2022 at approximately 4:34 p.m. Upon archiving an online adoption application, AdoPets considers the adoption ‘declined,’ and automatically sends a pro forma email to the potential adopter populated with the potential adopter’s name, the shelter name, and the name of the animal, thanking them for their interest in the animal and informing them that their adoption was declined,” the answer stated, in part.
“Upon information and belief, the email described in Paragraph 8 of plaintiff’s complaint is the automatically generated email sent by AdoPets after her online adoption application for Robbie was archived, as described above. Said email from AdoPets is a written communication which speaks for itself, and any selective quotation or interpretation thereof by plaintiff is specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at trial.”
According to the provided new matter, the defendant further denied the plaintiff’s rationale.
“There was no negligence, recklessness, or other actionable conduct committed by or on the part of the SPCA, and plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action against it. Even if it is judicially determined that the SPCA was negligent and/or reckless, which is specifically denied, no such action was causally related to any injuries and/or damages that plaintiff claims. Any acts and/or omissions of the SPCA alleged to constitute negligence and/or recklessness were not a substantial cause or factor of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injury and/or losses alleged by plaintiff. The incident, injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff were not proximately caused by the SPCA. The alleged injuries and/or damages sustained by plaintiff were caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by persons or entities other than the SPCA, and over whom the SPCA had no control and for whose actions the SPCA is not liable. The SPCA raises the bar of all applicable statutes of limitation with respect to any and all causes of action that might be barred thereby. The alleged injuries and/or damages, if any, were caused by and/or a result of intervening and/or superseding causes. The SPCA is not vicariously liable for the negligence of its volunteers pursuant to the Volunteer in Public Service Standard,” per the new matter.
“On April 8, 2022, plaintiff submitted an online adoption application for Robbie and thereby agreed to release the SPCA from liability for any injury or damage caused by Robbie. Plaintiff had access to notes regarding Robbie’s behavior and cat testing through her adoption application for Robbie. On April 8, 2022, plaintiff submitted her adoption application for Robbie through the ‘AdoPets’ online portal. AdoPets is a program used by the SPCA to process its adoption paperwork. Plaintiff chose to complete her adoption of Robbie in-person and, thus, plaintiff’s online adoption application was archived on April 22, 2022. Upon archiving an online adoption application, AdoPets considers the adoption ‘declined,’ and automatically sends a pro forma email to the potential adopter populated with the potential adopter’s name, the shelter name and the name of the animal, thanking them for their interest in the animal and informing them that their adoption was declined. Upon information and belief, the email described in Paragraph 8 of plaintiff’s complaint is the automatically generated email sent by AdoPets after her online adoption application for Robbie was archived, as described above. On April 22, 2022, plaintiff signed an adoption contract which expressly released the SPCA from any and all liability arising out of her adoption of Robbie.”
The plaintiff replied to the new matter on Oct. 24, 2023, largely denying it as conclusions of law to which no official response was required and otherwise making assertions to reiterate her initial claims.
“Plaintiff had no such access to notes concerning Robbie's behavior and cat testing through her adoption application for Robbie. On Jan. 15, 2022, plaintiff contacted defendant, submitted an application and indicated her interest in adopting a dog that was safe with cats in a household where plaintiff owned a cat. Whatever vendor defendant may or may not use to process adoptions is immaterial to plaintiff who reasonably believed and believes that she was dealing with defendant at all times,” the reply stated, in part.
“It is admitted that plaintiff signed the document attached to the answer and new matter as Exhibit B. It is specifically denied that that document ‘expressly released the SPCA from any and all liability arising out of her adoption of Robbie’ as the cited provision is limited by its express terms to the ‘as is’ physical condition and care of the animal and seeks to eliminate claims for reimbursement of bills concerned with the animal’s care, including medical and veterinary expenses and is not in any way a blanket release of claims for personal injuries that she suffered from the animal in accord with the averments of the complaint.”
UPDATE
On March 11, plaintiff counsel filed a praecipe to discontinue the case.
“Kindly mark the above-captioned matter as discontinued without prejudice as to all defendants, in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229” the praecipe stated.
The plaintiff was represented by Joshua J. Cochran of Schemery Zicolello, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant was represented by Stephen C. Hartley of McCormick Law Firm, in Williamsport.
Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2023-00905
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com