The New Jersey Supreme Court partially reversed the decisions of lower Courts and held that under New Jersey law, there is no independent contractor exception to NJSA 4:19-16 (The Dog Bite Statute). Goldhagen v. Pasmowitz 2021 N.J. LEXIS 791 (Aug. 5, 2021). The Dog Bite Statute applies a strict liability standard to dog owners when their dog bites someone. This means that regardless of an owner’s intent, or prior knowledge of his/her pet’s vicious proclivities, he/she will be liable for damages if the dog bites someone and that person files suit against them.
In Goldhagen, the Defendant had taken her dog to a pet care facility where Plaintiff worked as a “groomer and kennel assistant”. Id. at 9. Defendant informed the facility of the risk of aggression from her dog on an intake form, which would later be affixed to the door of her dog’s crate. Id. at 2. In the course of her duties, Plaintiff removed the dog from its crate without reading the form which contained the dog’s description, and was later bitten in the face, causing what the Court described as severe injuries. Id. at 1.
Subsequently, Plaintiff sued the Defendant dog owner at common law, and under the Dog Bite Statue. The Plaintiff lost in the trial court, with the Defendant being granted Summary Judgment pursuant to an Independent Contractor exception previously applied by the Appellate Division. Id. at 6. The Appellate Court later affirmed this decision. Id.
The New Jersey Supreme Court, however, upon granting cert, decided to reverse this decision and adopt a different approach. Id. at 31. (citing Reynolds v. Lancaster Cty. Prison, 325 N.J. Super. 298 (App. Div. 1999)). Specifically, the Court found that a plain reading of the Dog Bite Statute reveals no legislative intent to create an independent contractor exception, or any other exception, to the Strict Liability standard set forth in the Statute. Id. at 10. The Court’s rationale was that such a holding was not draconian for Defendant as New Jersey’s Comparative Negligence Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1 to - 5.8 would still apply to the extent fault was attributable to the Plaintiff. Id. at 11.
Said another way, while dog owners will still be held to a strict liability standard for the actions of their pet, a Plaintiff’s recovery can still be reduced by his/her own negligence. Id. For example, in Goldhagen, the Plaintiff’s “status as a professional experienced in the care of dogs…” would be relevant to any fault allocation. Id. Thus, while dog owners must be increasingly vigilant when it comes to monitoring their pets, it is clear that the Court cautioned against its holding being used as a sword by negligent Plaintiffs who find themselves on the receiving end of a potentially avoidable bite.