TITLE 4.  AGRICULTURE AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS

o:p> 

CHAPTER 19.  DOGS, TAXATION AND LIABILITY FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY

 

ARTICLE 3.  INJURY

 

N.J. Stat. §  4:19-16 (2003)  

§  4:19-16. Liability of owner regardless of viciousness of dog

 

   The owner of any dog which shall bite a person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.

For the purpose of this section, a person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner when he is on the property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner thereof. 

 

LexisNexis (TM) Notes:

 

CASE NOTES

Civil Procedure : Jury Trials : Jury Instructions

 

Evidence : Procedural Considerations : Inferences & Presumptions

 

Torts : Damages : Compensatory Damages

 

Torts : Multiple Defendants : Joint & Several Liability

 

Torts : Negligence : Defenses

 

Torts : Negligence : Duty : Animal Owners

 

Torts : Real Property Torts : General Premises Liability

 

Torts : Strict Liability : Injuries Caused by Animals

 

 

 

Civil Procedure : Jury Trials : Jury Instructions

 

1. Trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury of the circumstances under which plaintiff could be considered lawfully on defendant's dog owner's property pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16; plaintiff was entitled to have the jury consider whether he went onto defendant's property in order to defend his family from a dog attack or a perceived threat from the dog, such right should have been considered an implied invitation. Trisuzzi v. Tabatchnik, 285 N.J. Super. 15, 666 A.2d 543, 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 514 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995).

 

2. Although the legislature did not intend to abolish the defense of contributory negligence in enacting N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16, the legislature did intent the salutary and just result of precluding recovery by one whose negligence proximately resulted in his injury; thus although the trial court did not properly frame the jury charge related to contributory negligence, the court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff and required inclusion of the charge. Foy v. Dayko, 82 N.J. Super. 8, 196 A.2d 535, 1964 N.J. Super. LEXIS 438 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1964).

 

Evidence : Procedural Considerations : Inferences & Presumptions

 

3. Comparative Negligence Act was applicable to the statutory strict liability imposed by the dog-bite statute; thus, defendant had the burden to prove plaintiff's unreasonable and voluntary exposure to a known risk. Budai v. Teague, 212 N.J. Super. 522, 515 A.2d 822, 1986 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1408 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1986).

 

Torts : Damages : Compensatory Damages

 

4. Where a child was bitten by a dog and also suffered injuries as a result of having been knocked down by the dog, the dog bite statute imposed liability on the dog's owner for all damages suffered by the person bitten, not just those damages that resulted from the bite alone. Gross v. Dunham, 91 N.J. Super. 519, 221 A.2d 555, 1966 N.J. Super. LEXIS 350 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1966).

 

Torts : Multiple Defendants : Joint & Several Liability

 

5. Grandparents and dog owners were jointly and severally liable for injuries suffered by a 23-month old dog bite victim; despite the fact that dog's owners were strictly liable under the Dog Bite Statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16, they were responsible only for their pro rata share of the damages. Petersen v. Tolstow, 184 N.J. Super. 84, 445 A.2d 84, 1982 N.J. Super. LEXIS 745 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1982).

 

Torts : Negligence : Defenses

 

6. Parents were not entitled to the parent-child immunity on their child's claim for damages caused by a dog bite from the parents' dog, where the child brought his action under N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16, and where §  4:19-16 imposed strict liability on dog owners for any damages to any person bitten by the owners' dogs. Dower v. Goldstein, 143 N.J. Super. 418, 363 A.2d 373, 1976 N.J. Super. LEXIS 749 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1976).

 

Torts : Negligence : Duty : Animal Owners

 

7. Both the owner and her friend considered the dog theirs: they shared the burdens and benefits of the dog as a family pet and held themselves out as his owners; therefore, both the friend and the owner were the dog's "owners," subject to liability for the injuries to the child as a result of the dog's bite. Pippin v. Fink, 350 N.J. Super. 270, 794 A.2d 893, 2002 N.J. Super. LEXIS 188 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002).

 

8. Parents were not entitled to the parent-child immunity on their child's claim for damages caused by a dog bite from the parents' dog, where the child brought his action under N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16, and where §  4:19-16 imposed strict liability on dog owners for any damages to any person bitten by the owners' dogs. Dower v. Goldstein, 143 N.J. Super. 418, 363 A.2d 373, 1976 N.J. Super. LEXIS 749 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1976).

 

Torts : Real Property Torts : General Premises Liability

 

9. Where the dog is not known to the shopkeeper to be vicious, then principles of ordinary negligence, rather than absolute liability under the dog bite statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16, define the shopkeeper's liability; if it was reasonably foreseeable that shoppers would be bitten by a dog tied up at the store entrance, the fact that the shopkeeper did not create the hazardous condition would not preclude liability where the shopkeeper had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition for a reasonable period and failed to act in a reasonable manner to reduce the hazard. Nakhla v. Singer-shoprite, Inc., 205 N.J. Super. 184, 500 A.2d 411, 1985 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1522, 67 A.L.R.4th 969 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1985).

 

10. Trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that before it could impose liability upon a dog owner for injuries sustained when the child of an employee of the dog owner was bitten by the dog, it must find that the child was expressly or impliedly invited onto the portion of the dog owner's property where the dog was chained. De Robertis v. Randazzo, 94 N.J. 144, 462 A.2d 1260, 1983 N.J. LEXIS 2735 (1983).

 

Torts : Strict Liability : Injuries Caused by Animals

 

11. Owner of a dog was strictly liable under N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16 for injuries suffered by a meter reader who, while lawfully on the owner's property, was bitten by the dog. Pingaro v. Rossi, 322 N.J. Super. 494, 731 A.2d 523, 1999 N.J. Super. LEXIS 226 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999).

 

12. Trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury of the circumstances under which plaintiff could be considered lawfully on defendant's dog owner's property pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16; plaintiff was entitled to have the jury consider whether he went onto defendant's property in order to defend his family from a dog attack or a perceived threat from the dog, such right should have been considered an implied invitation. Trisuzzi v. Tabatchnik, 285 N.J. Super. 15, 666 A.2d 543, 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 514 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995).

 

13. In a negligence action where pedestrian was chased by stray dogs and fell on the sidewalk in front of homeowner's home; the dog bit statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16, was inapplicable as there was no bite inflicted on pedestrian and the dogs apparently did not make contact with or physically touch pedestrian in any fashion. Rodriguez v. Cordasco, 279 N.J. Super. 396, 652 A.2d 1250, 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 55 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995).

 

14. Where a dog had never bitten anyone in seven years and plaintiff had petted the dog on numerous occasions, it was impossible to conclude that plaintiff's action in touching the dog was anything more than mere negligence; mere negligence did not constitute a defense in a strict liability action. Budai v. Teague, 212 N.J. Super. 522, 515 A.2d 822, 1986 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1408 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1986).

 

15. Where the dog is not known to the shopkeeper to be vicious, then principles of ordinary negligence, rather than absolute liability under the dog bite statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16, define the shopkeeper's liability; if it was reasonably foreseeable that shoppers would be bitten by a dog tied up at the store entrance, the fact that the shopkeeper did not create the hazardous condition would not preclude liability where the shopkeeper had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition for a reasonable period and failed to act in a reasonable manner to reduce the hazard. Nakhla v. Singer-shoprite, Inc., 205 N.J. Super. 184, 500 A.2d 411, 1985 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1522, 67 A.L.R.4th 969 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1985).

 

16. Trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that before it could impose liability upon a dog owner for injuries sustained when the child of an employee of the dog owner was bitten by the dog, it must find that the child was expressly or impliedly invited onto the portion of the dog owner's property where the dog was chained. De Robertis v. Randazzo, 94 N.J. 144, 462 A.2d 1260, 1983 N.J. LEXIS 2735 (1983).

 

17. Grandparents and dog owners were jointly and severally liable for injuries suffered by a 23-month old dog bite victim; despite the fact that dog's owners were strictly liable under the Dog Bite Statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16, they were responsible only for their pro rata share of the damages. Petersen v. Tolstow, 184 N.J. Super. 84, 445 A.2d 84, 1982 N.J. Super. LEXIS 745 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1982).

 

18. Under the Dog Bite Statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16, only the owner of a dog was strictly liable for that dog's bite, and a keeper of the dog could only be held liable if the keeper knew of the dog's viciousness. Mascola v. Mascola, 168 N.J. Super. 122, 401 A.2d 1114, 1979 N.J. Super. LEXIS 754 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1979).

 

19. Summary judgment in favor of city was proper in minor's suit after being bitten by a dog owned by a tenant of a city owned dwelling because under N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16, it was the dog's owner who was to be held strictly liable for damages due to a dog bite; the term "dangerous condition" as used in the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, specifically N.J. Stat. Ann. §  59:4-2, was restricted to physical conditions; and the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, specifically N.J. Stat. Ann. § §  59:2-4 and 59:2-3(b), barred minor from contending that city was liable for failure to adopt or enforce a law or for administrative action or inaction. Cogsville v. Trenton, 159 N.J. Super. 71, 386 A.2d 1362, 1978 N.J. Super. LEXIS 822 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1978).

 

20. Parents were not entitled to the parent-child immunity on their child's claim for damages caused by a dog bite from the parents' dog, where the child brought his action under N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16, and where §  4:19-16 imposed strict liability on dog owners for any damages to any person bitten by the owners' dogs. Dower v. Goldstein, 143 N.J. Super. 418, 363 A.2d 373, 1976 N.J. Super. LEXIS 749 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1976).

 

21. Dog bite statute did not impose liability on dog owner for injuries suffered by bystander who was knocked to the ground when the dog broke free from its leash; the court declined to extend the statute to cover non-bite injuries. Hayes v. Mongiovi, 121 N.J. Super. 272, 296 A.2d 567, 1972 N.J. Super. LEXIS 668 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1972).

 

22. N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16 imposes strict liability on dog owners whose dogs are ordinarily harmless but who have the potential to bite. Tanga v. Tanga, 94 N.J. Super. 5, 226 A.2d 723, 1967 N.J. Super. LEXIS 583 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1967).

 

23. Under N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16, a dog owner was strictly liable for injuries caused when his cocker spaniel bit a visiting eight-year-old child in the face; although the dog had no history of viciousness; under these circumstances, the legislature intended to allocate the risk of injury to an innocent dog owner rather than to an innocent bystander. Tanga v. Tanga, 94 N.J. Super. 5, 226 A.2d 723, 1967 N.J. Super. LEXIS 583 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1967).

 

24. Where a child was bitten by a dog and also suffered injuries as a result of having been knocked down by the dog, the dog bite statute imposed liability on the dog's owner for all damages suffered by the person bitten, not just those damages that resulted from the bite alone. Gross v. Dunham, 91 N.J. Super. 519, 221 A.2d 555, 1966 N.J. Super. LEXIS 350 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1966).

 

25. Although the legislature did not intend to abolish the defense of contributory negligence in enacting N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16, the legislature did intent the salutary and just result of precluding recovery by one whose negligence proximately resulted in his injury; thus although the trial court did not properly frame the jury charge related to contributory negligence, the court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff and required inclusion of the charge. Foy v. Dayko, 82 N.J. Super. 8, 196 A.2d 535, 1964 N.J. Super. LEXIS 438 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1964).

 

26. In a personal injury action, the lower court improperly entered judgment for infant for injuries inflicted by tavern owner's dog because there was a factual question as to whether infant was an invitee pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. §  4:19-16. Smigielski v. Nowak, 124 N.J.L. 235, 11 A.2d 251, 1940 N.J. Super. LEXIS 353 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1940).