N.J. Stat. » Title 4 — AGRICULTURE AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 4:19-16 (2026)

Liability of owner regardless of viciousness of dog

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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.

For the purpose of this section, a person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner when he is on the property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner thereof.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: Collier v. Zambito, 807 N.E.2d 254 (N.Y. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Collier v. Zambito, 807 N.E.2d 254 (N.Y. 2004). · cites it 2× “22; Mont Code Ann § 27-1-715; Neb Rev Stat § 54-601; NJ Stat Ann § 4:19-16).”
Veronda v. Renae, 645 F. Supp. 2d 319 (D.N.J. 2009). · cites it 20× “Count I asserts that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff Veronda Dougan under New Jersey’s strict liability statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:19-16 , for damages due to physical injuries, emotional harms, and disruption of her daily activities.”
Gehrts v. Batteen, 2001 SD 10 (S.D. 2001). · cites it 2× “Our legislature has already imposed strict liability on dog owners for damages inflicted upon "poultry or domestic animal[s]." SDCL 40-34-2. While one may question the application of strict liability for damages to livestock, but not for injuries to children, the legislature is…”
Slack v. Villari, 476 A.2d 227 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1984). “Where a plaintiff demonstrates that the owner has permitted or allowed the animal to run at large, the plaintiff has shown evidence that the owner has violated the animal control statute through some negligent act and has generated a jury question. The jurisdictions are divided…”
Russo v. Zeigler, 67 A.3d 536 (Del. Super. Ct. 2013). “2009) (“Comparative negligence may indeed be a defense to cases brought under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:19-16 [New Jersey's dog-bite statute].”
Petersen v. Tolstow, 445 A.2d 84 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1982). · cites it 2× “" The stipulation was approved, using the procedure outlined in R. 4:44-3. At the close of all proofs the matter was submitted to the jury upon written interrogatories which detailed the liability issues.”
Wallace v. Strassel, 479 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). “The grandparents argued on appeal that since the dog's owners had been found liable pursuant to the dog bite statute which supposedly imposed absolute liability upon the owners, this evidenced the Legislature's intent that those found liable under the statute be solely…”
Prentiss v. Nat'l Airlines, Inc., 112 F. Supp. 306 (D.N.J. 1953). “34:-15-1; Dogbite Law N.J.S.A. 4:19-16; Lateral Support Law N.J.”
Bonay Goldhagen v. Susan Pasmowitz (084668) (Atl. Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. 2021). · cites it 16× “The Dog Bite Statute, N.J.S.A. 4:19-16, establishes a strict liability cause of action that a plaintiff injured by a dog bite may assert against the dog’s owner.”
Jane M. Cichoski Vs. Richard Turick (l-2076-15, Monmouth Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff claimed defendants were strictly liable under the so-called dog-bite statute, N.J.S.A. 4:19-16. Plaintiff also claimed defendants were negligent in failing to control their dog and allowing the dog to bite her.”
Angela Carpentiero Vs. the Est. of Jane Pocknett (l-1369-14, Middlesex Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). · cites it 3× “Count two was based on strict liability pursuant to N.J.S.A. 4:19-16. During her deposition, plaintiff testified that she was an employee of Katie's Pet Depot rather than an independent contractor.”
Bonay Goldhagen Vs. Susan Pasmowitz (l-1240-17, Atl. Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff appeals, arguing her assumption of risk and comparative negligence in caring for defendant's dogs does not apply under N.J.S.A. 4:19-16 and she was entitled to partial summary judgment on liability against defendant under the statute.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.