PINGARO V. ROSSI
731 A.2d 523 (1999)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Pingaro (P) appealed from an order denying Rossi's (D) motion for a
new trial as to damages and granting D's motion for a new trial as to liability.
FACTS: P sued D for dog bites. While performing her meter reading duties P arrived at
D's house. Her data cap, a hand-held computer, 'beeped' a message: '[b]ad dog, knock.' P
knocked on Di's door but received no answer. She proceeded to the fenced-in backyard,
rattled the gate and her keys and yelled 'gas company.' There was no response. She looked
around the backyard for dogs or other animals. After satisfying herself that the yard was
clear, she unhooked the gate and walked towards the meter. Two dogs approached her. One dog,
a large German Shepard, jumped up, knocked her down and bit her on both arms, legs and head.
She escaped and was taken to a Medical Center. P sued D for damages both physical and
mental. P saw a therapist on one occasion. The only gate to the backyard was the gate
utilized by P in entering the yard. D stated that a large 'Beware of Dog' sign was posted on
the gate. Over 10 years, D had spoken with several meter readers about his dog and told them
they should not enter his yard if no one was home. The meter readers responded that they
would comply with his request. When D was not at home the meter readers would estimate his
bill, leave a card for him to mail in or come back at a later date. Thomas Waldron, an NJNG
meter reader who had serviced the residence prior to P's injuries, confirmed that he had
spoken with D about his dog, and had accommodated his request that he not enter the yard if
no one was home. He denied that he had entered into a formal agreement with D. The jury
returned a verdict in favor of P in the amount of $300,000. It also found that D had
sustained his burden of proving that NJNG 'is responsible, in whole or in part, for the
incident on the basis of a contractual obligation.' The jury apportioned fault sixty-five
percent and thirty-five percent against D and NJNG respectively. D filed a motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict or alternatively for a new trial. The trial court
granted a new trial as to liability: D should have been permitted to introduce evidence of
P's comparative negligence. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment