context: In order for plaintiff to prevail under the "dog-bite" statute, she need not prove scienter; that is, that Rossi knew of the dog's dangerous propensities.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that one who brings action under a "dog-bite" statute is not required to establish dog's past conduct or owners knowledge thereof
citation_a.sentence: See DeRobertis, 94 N.J. at 151, 462 A.2d 1260 (holding that under the dog-bite statute, “even owners without scienter” become liable upon satisfaction of the statutory elements); see also Nicholes v. Lorenz, 396 Mich. 53, 237 N.W.2d 468, 472 (1976) (holding that one who brings action under a “dog-bite” statute is not required to establish dog’s past conduct or owners knowledge thereof).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 94 N.J. 151, 151
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that under the dog-bite statute, "even owners without scienter" become liable upon satisfaction of the statutory elements
citation_b.sentence: See DeRobertis, 94 N.J. at 151, 462 A.2d 1260 (holding that under the dog-bite statute, “even owners without scienter” become liable upon satisfaction of the statutory elements); see also Nicholes v. Lorenz, 396 Mich. 53, 237 N.W.2d 468, 472 (1976) (holding that one who brings action under a “dog-bite” statute is not required to establish dog’s past conduct or owners knowledge thereof).