Callahan & Fusco, LLC recently prevailed on a Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss a premises liability matter pertaining to negligent ownership of a dog in the United States District Court of New Jersey.
This case arose from alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiff after she had arrived at defendant’s premises to attend a bridal shower. Defendant had lent her farm property to her nieces as a venue. The elderly plaintiff claimed that upon arriving at defendant’s driveway, she was caused to be knocked over by the insured’s dog, suffering a broken hip and requiring surgical intervention. Prior to plaintiff’s fall, defendant had unleashed her dog who had been tethered to a tree; planning to take the dog with her to the store to get away from the commotion prior to the guests’ arrival.
Plaintiff in her Complaint alleged violation of municipal ordinances, common law strict liability, and negligent ownership of the dog in that defendant allowed the dog to freely roam her premises without a leash knowing the dog’s propensity to jump on people.
Following discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence for her claims. The Court issued a decision granting the motion.
In its decision, the Court first analyzed the municipal leash law, which prohibited dogs to remain unleashed on public property. The plaintiff argued that the imposition of this ordinance highlights the dangers of unleashing one’s animal. The Court, though, agreed with our argument that just because a municipality had enacted an ordinance prohibiting conduct in certain locations did not mean that the prohibitive conduct was itself dangerous. Thus, defendant had no obligation to leash her dog on her own property.
The Court also analyzed whether plaintiff had made her case for strict liability under the common law. Under New Jersey law, strict liability will be imposed for injuries caused by a domestic animal whose owner knew of the animal’s dangerous propensities. See Hayes v. Mongiovi, 121 N.J. Super. 272, 275 (Dist. Ct. Nov. 1, 1972). Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s decision to leash her dog was indicative of her knowledge as to the dog’s propensities. The Court, though, found that plaintiff merely made allegations as to defendant’s purported knowledge which failed to create a genuine issue of fact.
Finally, the Court examined plaintiff’s common law negligence claim. In negligence cases involving injuries caused by domestic animals, under New Jersey law, “the duty owed is ‘commensurate with the danger to others which will follow’ if the dog escaped from the owner’s control.” De Robertis v. Randazzo, 94 N.J. 144, 156 (1983). Using this standard, the Court found no evidence that the dog was unruly or agitated prior to being unleashed. Plaintiff also failed to present any evidence that the dog had a history of being overly affectionate or tended to act in a way that posed a danger to others. Also, the court reasoned that the town’s ordinance allowed defendant to permit her dog to roam unleashed within the confines of her property.
Thus, the Court concluded that as a matter of law, no duty of care owed to Plaintiff was violated and a great result was achieved for our client, a caring and responsible dog owner.