Charlotte Robinson v. Frank Vivirito (072407)
217 N.J. 199
| N.J. | 2014Background
- On Sept. 12, 2009, Charlotte Robinson walked across Dr. J.P. Cleary Middle School grounds (a shortcut) and was attacked by a neighbor’s dog; she was not on school business and it was a Saturday.
- The dog was owned by a resident adjacent to the school and was routinely chained nearby.
- Nine days earlier the school principal, Kenneth Nelson, received a certified-letter complaint that the dog had attacked people on or near school property; he did not call police/animal control after that letter.
- Nelson had previously contacted animal control on other occasions when stray dogs were found on school property during school hours; animal control responded then.
- Robinson sued the school principal and the school board under negligence/vicarious liability theories (Tort Claims Act); trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; Appellate Division reversed.
- New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification and reversed the Appellate Division, holding the principal owed no duty to Robinson under these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a school principal owes a duty to a non‑student trespasser injured by a neighbor's dog on school property after hours | Robinson: principal had notice of dangerous dog and was responsible for school grounds safety, so he had a duty to act (call police/animal control) | Nelson/Bd: no duty — dog not owned/controlled by school; incident occurred off-hours; imposing duty conflicts with TCA and traditional negligence limits | Held: No duty. Principal had no authority/control over the dog, no ability to prevent weekend occurrence, and plaintiff was unrelated to school (trespasser) |
| Whether N.J.S.A. 59:4-2 (dangerous condition of public property) applies to a wayward dog attack | Robinson: the school had notice of a hazard on/near premises making it dangerous | Defendants: the statute applies to physical conditions/features of property, not activities by third parties or animals the entity does not control | Held: Dangerous-condition statute does not extend to injuries caused by an animal not owned/controlled by the public entity in these circumstances |
| Whether vicarious liability under N.J.S.A. 59:2-2 makes the Board liable for principal’s omission | Robinson: Board vicariously liable for Nelson’s failure to act after notice | Defendants: Principal’s omission is not actionable negligence because no legal duty existed; therefore Board not liable | Held: Vicarious liability cannot be imposed because employee owed no duty under the facts |
| Whether Benjamin v. Corcoran compels a different result | Robinson: Benjamin shows public-entity employee can be liable for known dangerous dog on premises | Defendants: Benjamin is factually distinguishable (defendants there owned and lived on premises) | Held: Benjamin is distinguishable and inapplicable; ownership/control of dog there was central |
Key Cases Cited
- Polzo v. County of Essex, 209 N.J. 51 (foreclosure of factual view for summary judgment)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111 (TCA purpose: reestablish immunity and carve out liability)
- Tice v. Cramer, 133 N.J. 347 (vicarious liability is primary source of public-entity liability)
- Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 149 N.J. 496 (duty analysis considers totality of circumstances; foreseeability and factors)
- Jenkins v. Anderson, 191 N.J. 285 (scope and temporal limits of school officials’ duty to students)
- Benjamin v. Corcoran, 268 N.J. Super. 517 (App. Div.) (public-entity employee who owned/controlled dog on premises could be held to a duty to prevent attacks)
- Pfenninger v. Hunterdon Central Regional High School, 167 N.J. 230 (school owed duty to contractor under contract-related control)
- McDougall v. Lamm, 211 N.J. 203 (foreseeability as part of duty inquiry)