Pingaro v. Rossi
731 A.2d 523 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New Jersey's strict liability dog bite statute, a plaintiff's comparative negligence is a valid defense only if the defendant shows the plaintiff provoked the dog or voluntarily and unreasonably exposed themselves to a known danger. Mere carelessness or the failure to discover the dog's presence is insufficient to reduce the owner's liability.
Facts:
- Ellen Pingaro was employed by New Jersey Natural Gas Company (NJNG) as a meter reader.
- Joseph Rossi owned a German Shepherd dog that he kept in his fenced-in backyard.
- Upon arriving at Rossi's home, Pingaro's handheld computer displayed a message: "bad dog, knock."
- Pingaro knocked on Rossi's door but received no answer.
- She then rattled the gate to the backyard, called out "gas company," and hearing no response and seeing no dog, she entered the yard.
- Immediately upon her entry, Rossi's dog appeared, knocked her down, and bit her on the arms, legs, and head, causing significant injuries.
- Rossi had previously told other meter readers not to enter his yard if he was not home to secure his dog, and a "Beware of Dog" sign was posted on the gate.
- Rossi's dog had bitten three other people prior to the attack on Pingaro, including Rossi himself.
Procedural Posture:
- Ellen Pingaro sued Joseph Rossi in trial court for injuries sustained from a dog bite.
- Rossi filed a third-party complaint against Pingaro's employer, New Jersey Natural Gas Company (NJNG), seeking indemnification.
- The trial court granted a pre-trial ruling that Rossi was strictly liable under the statute and that evidence of Pingaro's comparative negligence was inadmissible.
- A jury returned a verdict for Pingaro, awarding her $300,000 in damages.
- The jury also found NJNG 35% at fault based on a purported contractual obligation with Rossi.
- Rossi filed a post-trial motion for a new trial on both liability and damages.
- The trial court denied a new trial on damages but granted a new trial on liability, allowing Rossi to argue the comparative negligence of both Pingaro and NJNG.
- Pingaro and NJNG appealed the order granting a new trial on liability, and Rossi appealed the order denying a new trial on damages, to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's failure to exercise ordinary care, such as violating an employer's safety policy, constitute comparative negligence sufficient to reduce a dog owner's liability under New Jersey's strict liability dog bite statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Havey, P.J.A.D.
No. A plaintiff's conduct constitutes comparative negligence in a statutory strict liability dog bite case only when the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encounters a known risk. Pingaro's actions did not meet this standard, as she did not have actual knowledge of the dog's presence and therefore did not deliberately expose herself to a known danger. Although she was warned of a potential "bad dog," she took precautions by knocking, rattling the gate, and shouting before entering. The court reasoned that any failure to follow her employer's safety manual would constitute, at most, a 'lack of ordinary care in failing to discover' the dog's presence, which is not a defense to strict liability. This standard is consistent with the defense allowed in strict products liability cases, which requires more than mere carelessness or inadvertence on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial court erred in ordering a new trial on liability to consider plaintiff's negligence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the narrow scope of the comparative negligence defense in New Jersey dog bite cases, which are governed by a strict liability statute. By aligning the defense with the high standard used in strict products liability—requiring voluntary and unreasonable exposure to a known risk—the court makes it more difficult for dog owners to shift blame to victims. This precedent provides strong protection for individuals, such as utility workers and mail carriers, who are lawfully on private property as part of their employment and may be injured by a resident's dog. The ruling reinforces that the social cost of keeping a potentially dangerous animal falls squarely on the owner, unless the victim knowingly and unreasonably courted the danger.
Unlock the full brief for Pingaro v. Rossi