The Superior Court of Union County granted summary judgment in favor of Clark & Fox’s client, Brick City Rescue (“Rescue”), in a personal injury case arising from a dog bite at an animal shelter. In the case, captioned Hecht v. Brick City Rescue, Plaintiff was injured when a dog he was looking to adopt at the Township of Union Animal Shelter (“Shelter”) bit him on the neck. The appointment to meet with the dog at the Shelter was made through the Rescue. Plaintiff brought suit against the Shelter and the Rescue, alleging that because the Rescue scheduled the appointment at the Shelter, it was liable for failing to complete “due diligence” on the dog before the meeting occurred. Plaintiff further alleged that the Rescue failed to adequately supervise the meeting and somehow legally took over control or ownership of the dog simply by making the appointment for plaintiff to meet the dog. Without specifically alleging that the Rescue was the owner of the dog, the Complaint included a cause of action under New Jersey’s Dog Bite Statute, which imposes strict liability on dog owners for bites. In effect, plaintiff attempted to place legal duties on the Rescue that do not exist under New Jersey law.

The Shelter and the Rescue play two different roles in the dog adoption process. The Shelter physically houses the dogs and can euthanize dogs if they are extremely aggressive or attacked a person. The decision to do so rests with the Union Board of Health’s health officer. The Shelter receives information about the dog and the reason is dog is being surrendered to the custody of the Shelter via written forms completed by the dog owners. The Shelter requires these forms before it will take custody of the dog.

The Rescue, on the other hand, does not physically house any dogs. It is a registered 501(c)(3) charitable non-profit entity with a mission to find “loving, stable” homes for all adoptable homeless dogs in New Jersey with a focus on Bully Breeds. It does not have any employees, but instead relies on volunteers, who typically also volunteer at animal shelters. The Rescue then uses the volunteers as “liaisons” for referrals for potential dogs to adopt and publicizes dogs that need to be adopted. Its primary purpose and activity is to unite homeless dogs with stable homes. The Rescue relies on the Shelter to disclose any information about a dog’s history to the potential adopter when referring people to the Shelter to meet a dog. Once the Rescue refers a potential adopter to an animal shelter, it is no longer involved in the adoption process.

In this case, plaintiff researched adopting a dog online and found a dog that the Rescue had listed for adoption on its website. He submitted an application to the Rescue and a representative called him and advised that while the dog he was inquiring about had already been adopted, the Shelter had two similar dogs available. Plaintiff agreed to meet the two dogs and the Rescue made an appointment for him with the Shelter and provided Plaintiff with a volunteer’s number who would be at the Shelter the next day. The Rescue’s representative advised that she would not be present at the Shelter.

Plaintiff arrived at the Shelter for his appointment and met with the Shelter volunteer, who advised that another family would be meeting the dogs as well. A Union Township Animal Control Officer was also present and he was responsible for showing potential adopters the shelter’s dogs. Due to the Covid-19 restrictions, the animal control officer would bring the dogs outside for potential adopters to meet. He was responsible to “maintain” and “keep an eye” on the dog and adopters and remove a dog if it appeared aggressive. The Officer walked the dog from inside the Shelter on a leash to meet Plaintiff and the other family. Plaintiff and the family were told not to place their faces near the dog during the introduction. Despite this instruction, Plaintiff crouched down next to the dog and the dog bit his neck.

Clark & Fox filed for summary judgment on the basis that the Rescue was exempt from liability under the New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act (“CIA”), that the Rescue did not own the dog and could not be strictly liable under the Dog Bite Statute, and that the Rescue had no legal duty to investigate the dog’s background or supervise the dog in any way after making an appointment with the Shelter. The court agreed with all Clark & Fox’s arguments. The court found that the Rescue met the requirements of the CIA because it was a non-profit entity organized for the charitable purpose of uniting homeless dogs with stable homes. It further found that plaintiff was a direct recipient of the good works of the Rescue because he was given a scheduled meet and greet to adopt a dog free of charge. With respect to plaintiff’s argument that the Rescue owned or controlled the dog, the court concluded that the undisputed factual record demonstrated that the Rescue was not an owner of the dog at the time of the incident and could not be liable under the Dog Bite Statute. The court held that none of plaintiff’s arguments in opposition to summary judgment were supported by any record evidence and granted judgment in the Rescue’s favor.

Clark & Fox is a firm of experienced lawyers with diverse international practices that focuses on representing the interests of the insurance industry. Information about all of Clark & Fox’s locations, attorneys, and practice areas is available on http://www.clarkfoxlaw.com

For more information, please contact:

John M. Clark, CEO/President: jclark@clarkfoxlaw.com