DOG BITE. $______ RECOVERY

Pages11-12
a home, a verbal altercation ensued and the
defendant summoned police to the residence and
lodged a complaint charging the plaintiff with
assault. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s
charges and asserted that the plaintiff filed the
suit solely for the purpose of harassment, delay,
and malicious injury to the defendant.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant falsely
charged her with assault which resulted in the plaintiff
being detained on August 5, 2017 and led to her
having to notify her place of employment of the po-
lice contact and relinquish a handgun and permit.
Theplaintiffalsoclaimedshewasunabletogoona
cruise, for which she had paid, because the defen-
dant held the tickets and refused to relinquish them.
The plaintiff claimed theft of $8,100, her passport,
clothing, taking of civil rights, and loss of income due
to being placed off-duty without pay. The plaintiff
also asserted that the defendant damaged her repu-
tation and defamed her character by accusing her
of being an alcoholic and drug dealer.
As a result, the plaintiff maintained, her installation as
president of a union was jeopardized, she was un-
able to afford to attend an annual convention, and
she suffered health issues including hospitalization for
stress and high blood pressure on multiple occasions
for which she had to pay out-of-pocket due to a lack
of insurance. The plaintiff sought damages for fraud,
defamation, conversion, and attorney fees for her
defense against the false accusations of assault and
related expungement, as well as medical damages
for hospitalizations due to stress brought on by the
situation.
The defendant counterclaimed that the plaintiff, in vi-
olation of R. 1:4-8, filed a complaint for an improper
purpose; that the complaint was frivolous; and that
there was no evidentiary support of the plaintiff’s
claims. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s
complaint was in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 and
forced the defendant to retain legal counsel and
thereby incur attorneys fees, costs and other ex-
penses. The defendant/counterclaimant asserted that
the parties were involved in a personal relationship
throughout which the plaintiff was emotionally and
psychologically abusive towards the defendant/
counterclaimant. The defendant asserted that, on
August 5, 2017, the abuse became physical when
the plaintiff assaulted the defendant/
counterclaimant. As a result of the psychological,
emotional and physical abuse/attacks, the defen-
dant/counterclaimant sustained severe injuries of
both a physical, emotional, and psychological
nature.
The defendant/counterclaimant claimed pain and
suffering, damages, losses and expenses for the di-
agnosis and treatment of the physical and psycho-
logical injuries the defendant/counterclaimant
sustained. The defendant/counterclaimant asserted
that she is unable to continue to pursue her usual av-
ocations, hobbies, interests and activities. The defen-
dant/counterclaimant also claimed economic
damages and losses including personal property the
plaintiff kept at his home and refused to return to the
plaintiff with a value of over $4,500.
The court determined that there were insufficient
proofs to submit to a jury, as to the plaintiff’s claim for
fraud and on the defendant’s counterclaims for as-
sault and battery and intentional infliction of emo-
tional distress and the court dismissed those claims.
The jury considered only the plaintiff’s claims for defa-
mation and conversion and the defendant’s counter-
claim for conversion. The jury found no liability as to
all and the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint
and the defendant’s counterclaim.
REFERENCE
Johnson vs. Eastman. Docket no. L- 000024-18;
Judge Samuel J. Ragonese, 01-15-20.
Attorney for plaintiff: Pro Se. Attorney for defendant:
Randy C. Redden, Attorney at Law in Vineland, NJ.
DOG BITE
$60,000 RECOVERY
Dog bite – Plaintiff carpet installer bitten by
defendants’ dog while measuring for carpet
installation – Puncture wounds, cellulitis and
permanent scarring and sensitivity – Defendants
dispute extent of injuries – Non-binding
arbitration assigns 100% liability to defendants.
Middlesex County, NJ
In this dog bite case, the plaintiff asserted that the
defendants failed to contain their dog and it bit
and injured the plaintiff. Liability was not in
dispute because the court had entered an order
on August 12, 2019 ruling that the defendants
were liable for the dog bite and any injuries
suffered by the plaintiff as a result thereof.
On January 16, 2018, the plaintiff was in the course of
his employment, taking measurements for floor cov-
ering at the defendants’ residence, and was legally
on the defendants’ premises at 38 West Church Street
in Milltown when the defendants’ dog bit him on the
leg. The plaintiff sought medical treatment for his
wounds.
The plaintiff sustained puncture wound, developed
cellulitis, and has permanent scarring and sensitivity
as a result of the attack. The defendants disputed the
nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the
plaintiff as a result of the dog bite incident.
11
New Jersey Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
Subscribe Now

To continue reading

Request your trial

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