New Jersey Accident and Injury Law Blog : New Jersey Injury Lawyer & Attorney : The Grossman Law Firm : Serving Monmouth County, Bergen County

A proposed piece of legislation in Florida intends to allow local governments to restrict certain breeds of dogs. The highly controversial bill, has angered dog owners in the state.

The bill, which has been sponsored by Sen. Tony Hill, D-Jacksonville, would allow local governments in Florida to regulate certain dog breeds. Florida has a ban on breed specific legislation. Dog owners and citizens are up in arms about why it is necessary to repeal the ban now, 10 years after it was passed. The bill would not ban any dog breed outright, but it would allow for certain regulations for owners of certain dog breeds. For instance, there may be additional insurance requirements for owners of certain breeds, or a provision requiring muzzling for other breeds.

Animal welfare agencies like the Humane Society, the American Kennel Club and the Florida Animal Control Association have expressed their opposition to the bill. According to them, breed specific legislation is pointless because it takes the focus off dangerous dog behavior and places too much attention on the breed. Besides, such legislation is pointless because it does nothing to limit the number of vicious dog bite attacks.

According to Sen. Hill, the inspiration for the bill came from the several dog bite attacks that have taken place in Florida over the past 12 months. Over the past 10 years, there have been 10 fatal dog bites in the state of Florida. Several attacks have left small pets and other animals as well as children, seriously injured. For Sen. Hill, it is a public health issue.

Breed specific legislation has always been controversial. As a New Jersey dog bite lawyer, I believe we should be focusing more on responsible dog ownership practices than banning certain breeds.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The issue of breed specific legislation is an extremely touchy one. These efforts have received mixed success wherever they have been introduced. One parish in Louisiana has now passed an ordinance banning pit bulls.

St. Mary's Parish in Louisiana passed the ordinance during the parish council’s meeting this week. According to the ordinance, it is illegal to own, keep or sell pit bulls within unincorporated areas of St. Mary's Parish. The bill, which will go into effect on 1 July 2010, also places restrictions on current owners of pit bulls.

The ordinance was passed by unanimous vote, and was preceded by intense debate at public hearings. One of the issues that came up during the hearings was the requirement that pit bull owners obtain an annual pit bull license for a one-time fee of $50 per license. After several pit bull owners protested that provision, it was struck off from the ordinance. Besides, the signs that pit bull owners will now be required to place outside their properties were changed from ”Beware Dangerous Dog” to “Beware Dog.”

Pit bull  owners in St. Mary's Parish must meet the following conditions.

• ·         The dog must have a license tag on the collar, and must be micro-chipped for identification.
• ·         Pit bulls must be placed in a secure 4' x 7' pen, with a 2 ½ inch thick concrete floor
• ·         The pen must be surrounded by 6-feet fencing.
• ·         Violations will be fined not less than $500 for a first offense, and between $300 and $500 for second offense.

Scott Grossman is a New Jersey dog bite lawyer representing injured victims of dog bites in Monmouth, Bergen, Passaic, ocean Counties and across the state of New Jersey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the more interesting happenings in New Jersey dog bite legislation this month involved a judge who  based his decision in a dog bite appeal on his personal experience with dogs.

The dog in question, a Rhodesian Ridgeback, belonged to Robert Taffet, an orthopedic surgeon in Haddonfield. The dog bit a man, Michael Harkins, who was then required to take a total of 30 stitches on his arm. The injury left permanent scarring. In another incident involving the same dog, a 14-year-old girl was bitten by the dog as she was petting it. The victim was visiting Taffet’s home at the time. Taffet encouraged the girl not to report the matter because the dog already had a record of attacks. There had also been other complaints from people in the neighborhood about the dog’s aggressiveness.

Animal control officers in Haddonfield filed a complaint against the dog, under New Jersey's Vicious Dogs Statute. The Haddonfield Municipal Court declared the animal vicious, and ordered Taffet to install a 6-foot fence around his property, muzzle the dog and purchase $1 million in liability coverage. However, Camden County Superior Court Judge John McNeil reversed the Haddonfield court’s decision.

According to Judge McNeil, he owned a Golden Retriever, and knew them to be “passive” animals. He discounted the credibility of both the victims in this dog bite case. Harkins and the 14-year-old victim Jacqueline Castorino, according to the judge, likely provoked the dogs into an attack.

An appeals court has now reversed Judge McNeil's ruling.

Scott Grossman is an experienced New Jersey dog bite lawyer, representing injured victims of dog bites in and around New Jersey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A serious dog bite incident in Georgia this week critically injured an eight-year-old girl. The attack has also led to louder calls for breed specific legislation  in the state.

Earlier this week, eight-year-old Erin Ingraham was playing in the yard at her Atlanta home when she was attacked by two Staffordshire Terrier dogs. Animal control officers were able to get the dogs off the little girl. One of the dogs was shot and killed in the scuffle, while another has been caught, and is likely to be euthanized. 

The attack was vicious, and Erin suffered serious injuries. She continues to remain in intensive care, and has undergone several surgeries since the attack. Obviously, Erin is looking at a long, traumatizing and painful recuperation. My prayers are with the little girl, and I hope that she makes a speedy recovery.

Meanwhile, the viciousness of the attacks have spurred calls for stronger dog bite legislation in Georgia. Georgia‘s dog bite laws don't allow for strict liability in a dog bite case. That means that when a bite incident occurs in Georgia, the dog must have been involved in a previous attack for the owner to be held liable. In comparison under New Jersey's strict liability laws, an owner can be held liable for the injuries caused by his dog even if it was the very first dog bite incident involving the animal.

In Georgia, the attack on Erin has led to at least one legislator calling for a ban on violent animals, or at least some kind of restrictions on violent breeds.

Scott Grossman is a New Jersey dog bite lawyer, representing injured victims of dog bites in Monmouth, Bergen, Passaic and Ocean Counties, and across the state of New Jersey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Officials in Holland Township in Huntingdon County have delayed a vote on whether to ban wolf hybrid dogs. The ban was proposed after 6 wolf dogs from a pack of 14 escaped from their owner’s property in September. Under the proposal, the owner will be given 30 days time to remove his wolf dogs from Holland Township, or face fines.

On September 6^th, the wolf dogs escaped through what police believe was a damaged fence. It was the fourth time this year that some of the dogs have escaped from the owner Cliff Zager’s home. The dogs didn’t attack any people. Of the 6 dogs that escaped, five were found within a few hours, while the fifth returned home a few days later. One of the dogs however, killed a neighbor’s cat.

Township authorities have delayed a vote while they decide what to do. Opinion is mixed. There have been locals speaking in favor of allowing the dogs to stay because they are not more dangerous than other dog breeds. However, Cliff Zager’s neighbors are justifiably anxious about another escape. The dogs have escaped 4 times thus far, and neighbors are worried that their children could be at risk from an attack. Several local residents want the animals banned from Holland Township.

Wolf dogs are a hybrid derived from mating a dog and a wolf. Typically, these kinds of hybrids can need more training and socialization. Much of the challenge in raising a wolf dog can depend on how much percentage of “wolf” is in the genes. Generally, the more wolf percentage the dog has, the more aggressive it may be. According to experts, wolf dogs tend to be good at escaping confined surroundings, because they need exposure to different situations and people. They may also have several features that may differentiate them from “regular” dogs. For instance, wolf dogs may not be as eager to please as a regular dog.

As of now, there is no approved Rabies vaccine for wolf dogs. What that means is that if a wolf dog is involved in a bite incident, it can be confiscated or euthanized even if it has been vaccinated properly.

As a New Jersey dog bite lawyer, I believe that the safety of a community and its children should be placed above all else.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The owner of the pit bull accused of terrorizing the community by biting five people in one day told a Parsippany New Jersey Municipal Court Judge that his dog had been provoked by passers-by.

The owner of the pit bull appeared in court to plead not guilty to the three charges lodged against him for the April 2 2008 attacks by his Pit bull. The victims were treated and released from the hospital for mostly superficial bites. 

Municipal Prosecutor said the state intended to have the dog declared "potentially dangerous," which he said was the "proper, prudent thing to pursue" given the rampage the dog went on outside the Lake Hiawatha branch of the public library.

The judge said the dog owner was offering a defense, which is something for him to do at trial, and asked again whether he understood the potential consequences of a finding of guilty. The owner said he believed the township was seeking "to put the dog down."

That the pit bull will not likely be destroyed did not sit well with one of the victims, who attended the hearing. He described the horror of trying to pull the dog off another victim only to have the pit bull bite him on his leg before charging his 13-year-old daughter. "I want to tell the judge what I went through," he said. "Trust me, it's too dangerous."

Parsippany's animal control officer, said… "Our concern is for public safety and we don't want people mugged in the street by pit bulls -- and that's just what happened,"  As reported in The Star -Ledger.  Please read more.

It is important to understand the differences in New Jersey’s laws pertaining to the municipal court’s role after a dog bite in declaring a dog “vicious” vs. declaring a dog “potentially dangerous”. The requisite standard of proof that the municipal court judge must follow in both situations requires a finding by the court by what is called “clear and convincing evidence”.  The main difference in the statute would be that if a dog had killed or caused “serious bodily injury” to a person it would be deemed vicious but if the dog caused “bodily injury”  to a person and poses a serious threat of bodily injury or death to a person, or poses a threat of serious bodily injury or death to a person it shall be deemed potentially dangerous. It is important to note that if the dog was provoked then the provocation would be a defense to the court’s declaring a dog either vicious or potentially dangerous. The municipality shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the dog was not provoked. 

The significance of the terminology between the court declaring a dog vicious versus declaring the dog potentially dangerous has nothing to do with the liability of the dog owner but it will determine the dog’s fate. That is if the municipal court declares a dog to be vicious, and no appeal is made of this ruling, the dog shall be destroyed in a humane and expeditious manner.  

 In New Jersey the fact that a dog attacked someone is sufficient to make the owner of the dog strictly liable for the injuries caused to the victim. We do not require the owner to have had knowledge of the viciousness of the dog before the dog owner shall be deemed liable.

I have reproduced the relevant New Jersey dog bite statutes below for your easy reference. Please feel free to browse my website at www.GrossmanJustice.com for more information concerning dog bite law in New Jersey. 

N.J.S.A. 4:19-16.  Liability of owner regardless of viciousness of dog
    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.

4:19-22.     Dog declared vicious by municipal court; conditions 
    6.  a.  The municipal court shall declare the dog vicious if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the dog: 

   (1)  killed a person or caused serious bodily injury as defined in N.J.S.2C:11-1(b) to a person; or 

   (2)  has engaged in dog fighting activities as described in R.S.4:22-24 and R.S.4:22-26. 

   b.   A dog shall not be declared vicious for inflicting death or serious bodily injury as defined in N.J.S.2C:11-1(b) upon a person if the dog was provoked.  The municipality shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the dog was not provoked. 

   c.   If the municipal court declares a dog to be vicious, and no appeal is made of this ruling pursuant to section 9 of P.L.1989, c.307 (C.4:19-25), the dog shall be destroyed in a humane and expeditious manner, except that no dog may be destroyed during the pendency of an appeal. 

   L.1989,c.307,s.6; amended 1994,c.187,s.3. 

4:19-23  Dog declared potentially dangerous; conditions.

7. a. The municipal court shall declare a dog to be potentially dangerous if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the dog:

(1) caused bodily injury as defined in N.J.S.2C:11-1(a) to a person during an unprovoked attack, and poses a serious threat of bodily injury or death to a person, or

(2) severely injured or killed another domestic animal, and

(a) poses a threat of serious bodily injury or death to a person; or

(b) poses a threat of death to another domestic animal, or

(3) has been trained, tormented, badgered, baited or encouraged to engage in unprovoked attacks upon persons or domestic animals.

b. A dog shall not be declared potentially dangerous for:

(1) causing bodily injury as defined in N.J.S.2C:11-1(a) to a person if the dog was provoked, or

(2) severely injuring or killing a domestic animal if the domestic animal was the aggressor.

For the purposes of paragraph (1) of this subsection, the municipality shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the dog was not provoked.

L.1989,c.307,s.7; amended 1994, c.187, s.4; 2002, c.24.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link