Owners and keepers of dogs should be aware that they are subject, in certain circumstances, to absolute liability for injuries sustained by others due to dog bites. Absolute liability may even apply in situations involving trespassers bitten by dogs.
The starting point for a dog bite cases is N.J.S.A. 4:19-16, which states that the owner of any dog that bites a person while such person is on or in a public place or lawfully on or in a private place, is liable for damages suffered by the bitten person regardless of the viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness. Thus, if a plaintiff can demonstrate (a) that a defendant owned the dog in question, (b) the plaintiff was in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the defendant’s property, AND (c) that the dog bit the plaintiff, then the defendant will be held liable for the plaintiff’s damages regardless of the dog’s viciousness.
Even if a plaintiff cannot prove one or more of the aforesaid elements, he may still have a cause of action based on common law principles. If a plaintiff can prove that a dog owner knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities, the dog owner is absolutely liable for injuries caused by the dangerous characteristics of the dog. The owner of a vicious dog, like the owner of a wild animal, is liable even when carefully restraining the dog. This would also apply to a temporary keeper or boarder of a vicious dog.
Comparative negligence principles do apply under either scenario. A defendant can attempt to demonstrate that the plaintiff unreasonably and voluntarily exposed himself to a known risk if the plaintiff knew the dog had a propensity to bite either because of the dog’s known viciousness or because of the plaintiff’s deliberate acts intended to incite the animal. One who beats or torments a dog cannot recover damages from an owner if the dog bites in self- defense. Absent such a showing, the dog owner is absolutely liable.
It should be further noted by dog owners and those injured by dogs that even certain trespassers are entitled to damages under common law principles when bitten by a dog. Not all trespassers are treated alike, as a “trespasser” includes both a burglar and an uninvited infant. Infants may lack sufficient discretion for their own safety and therefore may recover against a dog owner if bitten while trespassing because infants are usually presumed to be incapable of negligence. Burglars, on the other hand, should have no claim against a dog owner.
The attorneys of Ginarte Gonzalez Winograd L.L.P. are well-versed in this area of the law and have extensive experience handling dog bite cases for the firm’s clients.