Plaintiff sought medical attention for the wound and received a vaccination for rabies. No side effects were noted, and although Plaintiff was hospitalized and diagnosed with Urosepsis E-Coli shortly after this incident, the medical testimony indicates no correlation between the two ailments. The ownership of the dog is uncertain but evidence exists indicating that an employee of TQS introduced the dog to the premises and permitted it to roam freely. The dog disappeared immediately after its attack on Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges in his deposition testimony that he saw MTL tanks on the premises and that he was attacked by the dog while standing at the door to MTL's office.
Defendant denies possession, control or occupation of the premises.
Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must view all inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Plaintiff, however, improperly draws the conclusion that MTL can be held to control the dog. Under the applicable statute, ownership of the dog requires occupation of the premises, not ownership. The Third Circuit has held that neither use of a facility nor access to one is a dispositive indicator of possession.