cop/ dog bite

What is the name of your state? NJ

i am aware nj is strict liability w/ exception of tomenting the dog or deliberate acts inteded to incite the dog.

the situation is this- the police office legally entered the owners house and pulled his weapon on the owner in order to arrest him. the dog then bit the police officer scarring him.

question- by drawing his weapon did the cop torment or deliberately incite the animal? is this a "firemans rule" situation?

any case law would be great as i can't find anything like this online.

thank you
tim

question- by drawing his weapon did the cop torment or deliberately incite the animal? is this a "firemans rule" situation?

Click to expand...

You're kidding, right?

Unless the officer drew his weapon and pointed it at the dog, and said, "go ahead, dog, make my day," the dog was not "incited" or "tormented."

would the firemans rule say that because the dog owner wasn't willful or intentional w/ his misconduct that the cop wouldn't have a case?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Anyway, a dog bit is strict liability -- that means the owner is liable regardless of whether or not he thought the dog would bite. Intent or willfulness is irrelevant -- what are you going to do, try and figure out the dog's intent?

Yes, I am curious as the the intent of the dog.

Sounds like another 'homework' assignment.
And we don't do homework!!

Rough ruff.

any case law would be great as i can't find anything like this online.

Click to expand...

Which is why your professor posed this exact scenario. To make you THINK. Imagine that, a law student forced to think. What WILL they come up with next?

here's one last chance at explaining my question:

In 1960, New Jersey adopted the "Fireman's Rule," which provided that the owner or occupier of a premises was not liable for injuries to a paid fireman for negligence with respect to the creation of a fire. Krauth v. Geller, 31 N.J. 270 (1960).
This year the New Jersey Supreme Court expanded the Fireman's Rule beyond attendance at a fire, and limited a firefighter's or police officer's recovery to workers' compensation benefits when the employee was injured while performing incidental duties such as responding to a medical emergency. Rosa V. Dunkin' Donuts of Passaic, 122 N.J. 66 (1991). In Rosa, a police officer, who, while responding to a call for emergency medical assistance slipped on the kitchen floor of a donut shop due to the presence of confectioners' sugar or flour and injured his foot, was barred from pursuing a negligence action and was limited exclusively to a claim for workers' compensation benefits.

WHAT I'M ASKING IS THIS: can the cop sue even though he's limited to wc benefits under Rosa? divgradcurl - i appreciate your thoughts and i imagine you're right but that doesn't do me any good unless you site the case. the cop was in the course of his employment when he got bit. given that the dog owner is liable, doesn't Rosa say my cop cannot sue?

And here is one more chance at telling you...
We do NOT do people's homework!!

This year the New Jersey Supreme Court expanded the Fireman's Rule beyond attendance at a fire, and limited a firefighter's or police officer's recovery to workers' compensation benefits when the employee was injured while performing incidental duties

Click to expand...

And Rosa not the Fireman's Rule does not apply to your case.

Simply put, the police office was not in attendance 'incident' to his duties. he was performing his duties. And that is the problem with your logic.

For some reason I'm in a legal research mood, so here's the answer to all of your questions.

Krauth v. Geller, 31 N.J. 270 (1960) that you quoted is bad law; it was overturned by Kelly v. Ely, 336 N.J. Super. 354, so you can't rely on it as good law.

Further, Rosa V. Dunkin' Donuts of Passaic, 122 N.J. 66 (1991) has been superceded by statute, so it is no longer good law either. The statute is:

In addition to any other right of action or recovery otherwise available under law, whenever any law enforcement officer, firefighter, or member of a duly incorporated first aid, emergency, ambulance or rescue squad association suffers any injury, disease or death while in the lawful discharge of his official duties and that injury, disease or death is directly or indirectly the result of the neglect, willful omission, or willful or culpable conduct of any person or entity, other than that law enforcement officer, firefighter or first aid, emergency, ambulance or rescue squad member's employer or co-employee, the law enforcement officer, firefighter, or first aid, emergency, ambulance or rescue squad member suffering that injury or disease, or, in the case of death, a representative of that law enforcement officer, firefighter or first aid, emergency, ambulance or rescue squad member's estate, may seek recovery and damages from the person or entity whose neglect, willful omission, or willful or culpable conduct resulted in that injury, disease or death.

N.J. Stat. § 2A:62A-21

Click to expand...

In other words, Rosa doesn't count any more, and yes, the cop can sue.

I do hope that this was a legitimate question, and not a homework problem...

Due to the 'tone and style' of the post, I originally believed that this was a homework assignment and refused to provide answers.

I also find it interesting that the original poster made NO claim to contradict my assumption that his questions were indeed, 'homework'.

My assumption was even more confirmed by this writers subsequent post, in both style and substance.... including citations and reference to 'almost' applicable law.

JETX,

you are undoubtedly right -- I guess since I was doing some research myself anyway, I got kind of curious myself. I apologize for feeding the wildlife...