Cogsville v. City of Trenton

Decision Date25 April 1978
Citation159 N.J.Super. 71,386 A.2d 1362
PartiesRachael COGSVILLE, by her Guardian ad Litem, Carol Cogsville and Carol Cogsville, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF TRENTON, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Joseph P. O'Donnell, Trenton, for plaintiffs-appellants (Stockman, Mancino, Marinari, Smithson & O'Donnell, Trenton, attorneys).

Gerald A. Hughes, Trenton, for defendant-respondent (Levy, Levy, Albert & Marcus, Trenton, attorneys).

Before Judges MICHELS, PRESSLER and BILDER.

BILDER, J. S. C. (temporarily assigned).

This is an appeal by a plaintiff from the grant of a summary judgment dismissing the claim.

The infant plaintiff was injured when she was bitten by a dog owned by a month-to-month tenant occupying a single-family dwelling owned by defendant City of Trenton. Plaintiffs allege the dangerous propensities of the dog had been known to the Trenton police and public health departments for at least six months as a result of prior incidents. The trial judge dismissed on the ground that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action against defendant.

Plaintiffs seek to establish liability on two alternative theories: first, that the city, as landlord, is liable for injury created by its tenant's dog; and second, that the city is liable for its failure to have the dog removed from the public streets and city-owned property given its known violent nature.

The trial judge rejected both theories:

(Plaintiff is) attempting to hold the city liable for an act which under the Tort Claims Act they would have immunity for, and I haven't been shown anything in the Tort Claims Act which prevents the city from invoking that immunity in the first place. In the second place, I disagree with (plaintiff's) theory that in this factual situation that a landlord would be responsible for a nuisance created by a dog owned by its tenant.

We agree.

By legislative fiat, the owner of a dog is held strictly liable for damages caused when that dog bites someone. N.J.S.A. 4:19-16. We have found no case nor has any such rule been called to our attention attaching liability to a dog-owner's landlord.

In Wasilewski v. McGuire Art Shop, 117 N.J.L. 264, 187 A. 530 (Sup.Ct.1936), the court set out the general rule concerning a landlord's liability with respect to a nuisance:

* * * the landlord's liability to strangers is confined to the injurious consequences of that which in its very essence and nature is a nuisance at the time of the letting, and does not extend to that which is merely capable of being thereafter rendered a nuisance by the tenant. * * * Where, under ordinary circumstances, a nuisance necessarily ensues from the plainly contemplated manner of use of the thing demised, and is not to be avoided by the tenant's exercise of reasonable care, the landlord is liable for the resulting injury; * * *. As was said in Fish v. Dodge, supra (4 Denio N.Y. 311) when the letting is for a lawful purpose which may result in a nuisance only under special circumstances, the landowner "cannot be justly charged with the wrong which was actually committed by others, * * * unless he knew, or had reason to believe, that he was letting the property for a use which must prove injurious to the plaintiff." (at 266-267, 187 A. at 531.)

Thus, ordinarily a landlord has no liability for a nuisance on leased premises unless it existed prior to the letting and was continued by the tenant, or unless the nuisance was the direct result of the use agreed to by the landlord. Park Lumber and Supply Co. v. Iommetti, 37 N.J.Super. 13, 116 A.2d 805 (App.Div.1955); Benton v. Kernan, 127 N.J.Eq. 434, 13 A.2d 825 (Ch.1940), mod. 130 N.J.Eq. 193, 21 A.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Levin v. County of Salem
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 15 Julio 1993
    ...193 N.J.Super. 39, 472 A.2d 146 (App.Div.1983), certif. denied, 96 N.J. 291, 475 A.2d 586 (1984)); accord Cogsville v. City of Trenton, 159 N.J.Super. 71, 386 A.2d 1362 (App.Div.1978) (holding that exposure to dog bites from allegedly vicious dog owned by tenant in city dwelling did not con......
  • Saldana v. DiMedio
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 18 Agosto 1994
    ...117 N.J. 647, 569 A.2d 1345 (1989); Garry v. Payne, 224 N.J.Super. 729, 735, 541 A.2d 293 (App.Div.1988); Cogsville v. Trenton, 159 N.J.Super. 71, 74, 386 A.2d 1362 (App.Div.1978). These cases are factually distinguishable and do not support defendants' claim for immunity. In contrast to th......
  • Kolitch v. Lindedahl
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 22 Julio 1985
    ...(App.Div.1983) (presence at a racetrack of persons with a criminal intent is not a "dangerous condition"); Cogsville v. Trenton, 159 N.J.Super. 71, 386 A.2d 1362 (App.Div.1978) (a vicious dog that bites an infant on a public street is not a "dangerous condition"); Setrin v. Glassboro State ......
  • Daniel v. State, Dept. of Transp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 19 Marzo 1990
    ...483 A.2d 177 (1984); Speziale v. Newark Hous. Auth, 193 N.J.Super. 413, 419, 474 A.2d 1085 (App.Div.1984); Cogsville v. Trenton, 159 N.J.Super. 71, 74, 386 A.2d 1362 (App.Div.1978); Setrin v. Glassboro State College, 136 N.J.Super. 329, 332-333, 346 A.2d 102 (App.Div.1975). In Burroughs v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT