N.J. Model Civil Jury Charge 5.60A

5.60A STATUTORY OWNER – DOG BITE LIABILITY

(N.J.S.A. 4:19-16)1 (Approved 12/2009; Revised 10/2022)

Plaintiff, ___________________, alleges being injured as a result of a bite

from a dog owned by the defendant, __________________.

The liability of a n owner of a dog is one imposed by statute, namely

N.J.S.A. 4:19-16, which in its pertinent parts reads as follows:

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.

[The remaining part or parts of the statute should be

charged where applicable.]

For the purpose of this section, a person is lawfully upon the private

property of such owner when [the person] is on the property in the

performance of any duty imposed upon [the person] by the laws of

this state or the la ws or posta l regulations of the United States, or

when [the person] is on such property upon the invitation, express or

implied, of the owner thereof.

In order for you to find the defendant, _____________ liable, the plaintiff,

______________, must establish by a preponderance of the evidence the following

elements:

1 This charge is to be used only in statutory liability situations. As to common law liability, see

Model Civil Charge 5.75.

1. That the defendant, ___________________, was the owner of the

dog in question;

2. That the plaintiff, ___________________, was on or in a public place

or lawfully on or in a private pla ce, including the property of the

defendant, and finally

3. That the dog did bite the plaintiff while in such a place.2

If you find that the plaintiff, __________________, has failed to establish

any of the foregoing elements, your verdict will be in favor of the d efendant,3

_____________.

In deciding whether the plaintiff was on or in a public place or lawfully on

or in a private place, including the property of the defendant, you should note that

anyone whose presence is expressly or impliedly per mitted on the property is

entitled to the protection of the statute I have just read; the permission extends to

2 See DeVivo v. Anderson, 410 N.J. Super. 175 (Law Div. 2009), where the trial court granted

summary judgment to the pla intiff finding that all elemen ts of the cause of action were

established even where the skin was not broken by the bite. The court reasoned that there is

no explicit requirement in N.J.S.A. 4:19-16 that the injury result in broken skin.

3 Where an issue of fact exists as to whether defendant is the owner of the dog involved or as to

whether the plaintiff was unlawfully on or in a private place when the biting occurred, it may be

necessary to supplement this charge with additional instructions as to absolu te liability of

owners and keepers of vicious animals and/or the duty, under ordinary negligence theories, of

the owner of premises to invitees, licensees, infant trespassers, and other trespassers who come

upon the premises where the dog is kept, see DeRobertis v. Randazzo, 94 N.J. 144 (1983);

Mascola v. Mascola, 168 N.J. Super. 122 (App. Div. 1979); Nakhla v. Singer -Shoprite, 205

all areas wh ich the plaintiff may reasonably believe to be included within its

scope.4

If you find that the plaintiff, ___________________, h as established each

of the foregoing elements, your verdict will be in favor of the plaintiff, 5

_________________.

NOTE TO JUDGE

You will note that the statute imposes liability on an owner,

regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner’s

knowledge of such viciousness.

If you conc lude in favor of the plaintiff, ___________, you must then

proceed to the question of damages.

A. Dog Bite Liability — Plaintiff’s Comparative Negligence/Burden

of Proof

In a case such as this where the defendant has ra ised the negligence of the

plaintiff as a defense, the defendant has the burden of proof. This means that the

defendant has the burden to prove plaintiff’s “unreasonable and voluntary

N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 1985), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 399 (1986).

4 DeRobertis v. Randazzo, 94 N.J. 144 (1983).

5 Where there is an issue of comparative negligence, that charge should be inserted. See Foy v.

Dayko, 82 N.J. Super. 8, 14 (App. Div. 1964) “[T]he Legislature did not intend to abolish the

defense of contributory negligence in enacting [the dog bite statute].”

exposure to a known risk.”6 This means that 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. For example, one who

beats or torments a dog has no call upon the owner if in self-defense the dog bites

back.7

6 Goldhagen v. P asmowitz, 247 N.J. 580 (2021); statute includes keepers and groomers of

dogs who are subject to comparative negligence defenses including factors such as experience

working with dogs, warnings provided, and plaintiff’s conduct in handling the dog, etc.

7 Budai v. Teague , 212 N.J. Super. 522 (Law Div. 1986); see also Dranow v. Kolmar , 92

N.J.L. 114, 116-17 (1918).