.... The statute reads in part: Liability of owner regardless of viciousness of dog: Th...be decided in this case is whether N.J.S.A. 4:19-16 provides relief to a person who is injured, but not bitten, by a dog...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...

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

...States of America, the owner of such dog may be held liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such ...the majority reasons the statute's language that an owner " may be held liable . . . regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness," has the "net...dog" does not restrict the term "owner" to those in immediate custody. Rather, it expands the definition of "owner" to include others in addition to the dog's owner. We agree that Cook's liability is...

...for this reason that a dog owner is strictly liable to a person injured “regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.” N.J.S.A. ...by a roaming dog on persons on school premises when school is not in session. The Legislature imposes strict liability on a dog owner...she received from the dog against defendant Frank Vivirito, the owner of the house where the owner of the dog lived, and an amended complaint against Keller, the owner of the dog, and the Buena Bo...

....) Burgess has failed to show that appellees harbored the dog. For strict liability, Burgess is required under the dog-bite statute, R.C. 955...dog, and in a common-law claim not based on strict liability, she must show that appellees harbored the dog with knowledge of its vicious tendencies. In order to show that...animals or pets by one's tenants or residents, does not make one an `owner, keeper or harborer of a dog.'" Thompson, supra, citing Bundy, supra. Nevertheless, Burgess argues...

...N.J.S.A. 4:19-16, which imposes liability for damages sustained from a dog bite on the owner "regardless of the former ..., N.J.S.A. 4:19-16, imposes liability on dog owners in personal injury actions arising from dog bites in certain settings, "...upon a specific statute, such as...New Jersey's dog-bite law, [N.J.S.A.] 4:19-16"). Noting that in the product liability setting, a defendant asserting a strict ...

..., regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on...before he can be held to have assumed the risk is identical to that which had been required to impose liability on the owner of the dog prior to the enactment of section 3342 of the Civil Code. We...although he did not know whether the dog had a history of viciousness. [4] Plaintiff claims, however, that there was no showing...

... dog is an "owner" subject to the doctrine of strict liability as set forth in N.J.S.A. 4:19-16. The essent...judgment on the strict liability count (count 1), contending that they were not "owners" of the dog and therefore not subject to N.J.S.A. 4:19-16. The aforementioned statute pr...should be construed together. Chapter 19 of our statutes is divided into three articles. Article 1 is the Dog Tax and Liability Act of 1922, as amended, N.J.S.A. 4:19-1 to 9...

...as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner...person who is lawfully in a public or private place is liable for any damage suffered by the injured party regardless of whether the owner of the dog has wrongfully or negligently permitted his dog to be...[ 146 P.2d 32].) The statute referred to reads thus: " Liability of owner of dog. The ...

...a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of such dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the..., section 53: "A statute imposing liability on the `owner' of a dog without regard to knowledge of his vicious nature does not apply to one merely harboring or keeping a dog not owned by him, and, to...of its vicious tendencies. It may here be observed that liability for the bite of a dog may attach not only to the owner without reference to knowledge, but also to a keeper as well if the latter...

...bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owners' knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon private property of such owner within the meaning of this act when he is...these requirements is to make certain that before a dog owner will be relieved of liability, the attempt to give notice that a bad dog is on the premises must be genuine, effective and bona fide. In...sufficiency of this notice should be determined by the circumstances of each case. While it is reasonable to conclude that the Legislature could enact a statute shielding a dog owner from liability where...

...is adequately restrained; {¶ f} "* * * {¶ g} "(E) No owner * * * of a vicious dog shall fail to obtain liability insurance * * * providing coverage in each occurrence * * * of...conclusion that she was such an owner. The deputy dog warden did not force Cowan to purchase liability insurance. The deputy dog warden did not remove the dogs from Cowan's possession...and adversely affected." It is not clear to what property rights the majority refers. If the majority means that the dog owner was required to buy liability insurance after the warden advised her to...

...of the owner's knowledge or lack of knowledge of any such viciousness, and regardless of whether or not the owner has been negligent in respect to the dog, provided, however, that if a person knowingly...place, including the property of the owner of such dog, is liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten regardless of whether or not the dog previously had been vicious, regardless...the danger, the owner of the dog is not liable for the consequences ... We think the California rule is sound. It is short of the rule of strict liability for dogs...

...the property of the owner of such 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...statute. The statute then in effect, 1857 CL 1645, provided that if any dog "shall assault or bite, or otherwise injure any person while traveling the highway or out of the enclosure of the owner or keeper...of such dog, such owner or keeper shall be liable to the * * * person injured in double the amount of damages sustained". The plaintiff was attacked on the highway and the Court held that the jury...

...who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's...) 356 So.2d 368 [4 A.L.R.4th 343], a Florida appellate court, construing a statute similar to section 3342, concluded a dog owner is not strictly liable ...propensities on Amos' part. Civil Code section 3342 provides: "The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person...

...the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former...3342, subdivision (a) (fn. 2, ante), which imposes on a dog owner liability for damages suffered by a person bitten by the dog while in a public place.... However, Civil Code section 3342 cannot reasonably be read as applicable only to dogs while they are physically running loose, because it imposes liability on the owner regardless of...

...provides in part: "The owner of a dog which shall bite any person . . . shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the... a dog with known vicious habits, bad tempered or mischievous traits may create liability on the part of the owner. A dog with the habit of...] In support of their contention that liability of the owner of the dog is incurred only when the complainant is actually bitten, the Statutes of California, for 1931, page 1095, is cited. This act...

...] Landlord and Tenant — Animals — Dogs — Liability for Attack — Liability of Owner's Landlord. Only the owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog is liable for harm caused by the dog's attack. The..., 457 P.2d 194 (1969) (owner who knows or reasonably should know of a dog's dangerous propensities is subject to a form of strict liability for injuries caused by the ...owned by the company, because liability is imposed only on the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog, and the receiver did not fit any of those categories. Markwood, 110 Wn. at 211...

...mention N.J.S.A. 4:19-16, which imposes absolute liability on an owner whose dog bites a person who is lawfully on the owner's premises. Nor does the complaint allege that Randazzo is abs...plaintiff was lawfully on the property of the owner, but the trial court did not submit that question to the jury. The omission is important because the "dog-bite" statute, N.J.S.A. 4:19-16, impos...a severe dog bite because the boy was not "lawfully on . . . the property of the owner of the dog." N.J.S.A. 4:19-16. Because that result is inconsistent with the way that defendant tried...