## Facts

- Ellen Pingaro, a New Jersey Natural Gas Company (NJNG) meter reader, went to Joseph Rossi’s home for the first time to read a meter.
- Her handheld device warned “bad dog, knock”; she knocked on the front door, rattled the backyard gate, and called out “gas company,” but received no response and saw no dog.
- Believing the yard was empty, she entered through the gate to approach the meter.
- Two dogs appeared; Rossi’s German Shepherd knocked her down and bit her head and limbs.
- Pingaro sustained multiple bite wounds requiring stitches, permanent scarring, psychological effects, and lost time from work.
- Rossi kept a “Beware of Dog” sign, had previously told some meter readers not to enter when he was not home, and the dog had prior biting incidents (admitted into evidence at trial).
- Pingaro sued Rossi under New Jersey’s dog-bite statute, N.J.S.A. 4:19-16; Rossi filed a third-party complaint against NJNG alleging negligent training/procedures and seeking contribution/indemnification.

## Issues

1. Whether N.J.S.A. 4:19-16 permitted submitting plaintiff’s comparative negligence to the jury absent evidence of incitement or voluntary and unreasonable exposure to a known risk.
2. Whether a dog owner could obtain contribution or fault allocation against the injured plaintiff’s employer (NJNG) despite workers’ compensation exclusivity and limits on joint-tortfeasor status.
3. Whether evidence of the dog’s prior bites was admissible on damages, and whether its admission required a new trial limited to damages.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division held Rossi was strictly liable under N.J.S.A. 4:19-16 for injuries to a lawful entrant.
- The court held there was no evidence that Pingaro incited the dog or voluntarily and unreasonably exposed herself to a known risk; comparative negligence should not have been submitted.
- The court held NJNG, as Pingaro’s employer, could not be treated as a joint tortfeasor for contribution purposes, barring Rossi’s contribution-based apportionment against NJNG.
- The court held prior-bite evidence was irrelevant to compensatory damages and unduly prejudicial; its admission warranted a new trial limited to damages.
- The court reversed the order granting a new trial on liability and reversed the denial of a new trial on damages, ordering a damages-only retrial.

## Legal Principles

- N.J.S.A. 4:19-16 imposes strict liability on a dog owner for bites inflicted on persons in a public place or lawfully on private property, regardless of the dog’s former viciousness or the owner’s knowledge.
- Comparative negligence is not a basis to reduce recovery under the dog-bite statute unless the plaintiff’s conduct fits narrow defenses such as incitement or voluntary and unreasonable exposure to a known risk.
- An employer protected by the Workers’ Compensation Act is not a joint tortfeasor for purposes of contribution to a third party for the employee’s work injury.
- Evidence of prior bites is generally irrelevant to compensatory damages in a strict-liability dog-bite case and may be excluded when its prejudicial effect outweighs any probative value; erroneous admission can require a new trial on damages.

## Conclusion

The court enforced statutory strict liability against the dog owner without comparative-fault reduction, barred contribution claims against the plaintiff’s employer, and ordered a new trial limited to damages because prior-bite evidence improperly prejudiced the damages verdict.


Pingaro v. Rossi, 322 N.J. Super. 494 (App. Div. 1999)