## Facts

- Joseph Randazzo, Jr. operated an auto body shop and kept a German Shepherd (Pollo) chained near the rear of the shop.
- Peter DeRobertis (age five) frequently accompanied his father, Vito DeRobertis, to the shop and was allowed to move around the premises and do small tasks.
- On June 21, 1977, Peter was on the property and was bitten on the head by Pollo, suffering serious injuries.
- On the day of the bite, Peter accompanied shop employee Bruce McCarthy on an errand; Vito left on an unrelated towing job.
- After returning, McCarthy left Peter at the shop, and Peter later went to an area where the chained dog could be seen and heard.
- Randazzo was not present when the bite occurred and did not recall warning Peter about the dog or any prior bite incidents.
- Peter (through a guardian ad litem) and Vito sued for damages, asserting statutory strict liability under N.J.S.A. 4:19-16 and common-law negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury had to determine as a factual matter that Peter was “lawfully on” the property (including within the scope of any invitation to the area where the dog was kept) before strict liability could be imposed under N.J.S.A. 4:19-16.
2. If Peter was not “lawfully on” the property, what common-law standards govern the owner’s liability for the dog bite.
3. Whether the trial court’s jury instructions improperly mixed statutory and common-law theories and removed the lawful-presence question from the jury.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the judgment for plaintiffs and remanded for a new trial.
- The trial court committed reversible error by not submitting to the jury the disputed factual question whether Peter was “lawfully on” the property for purposes of N.J.S.A. 4:19-16.
- Because lawful presence is a threshold condition for statutory strict liability, the omission in the charge required a new trial with proper instructions distinguishing statutory liability from common-law liability.

## Legal Principles

- N.J.S.A. 4:19-16 imposes strict liability on a dog owner only when the bitten person is “lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog.”
- If the injured person is not lawfully on the property (including if the person is a trespasser or outside the scope of permission), the statute does not apply and liability is determined under common-law principles.
- For statutory coverage, the factfinder may need to decide whether the owner’s invitation or permission extended to the particular area where the dog was kept.
- When the statute is inapplicable, common-law liability may rest on negligence (failure to control or warn when reasonable) and/or keeping a dog with known vicious propensities, with attention to the plaintiff’s status and the foreseeability of harm.

## Conclusion

The court required a new trial because strict liability for a dog bite depends on a jury finding that the child was lawfully on the premises—potentially including whether any invitation extended to the area where the dog was chained—and, if not, the case must be decided under common-law standards rather than the statute.


DeRobertis v. Randazzo, 94 N.J. 144, 462 A.2d 1260 (N.J. 1983)