Pippin v. Fink

3 Citing cases

  1. Jennings v. Shauck

    523 P.3d 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 2023)

    The circumstances existing at the time of the inquiry must be examined, and the actions, attitudes, and understanding of the suggested owner or owners must be considered, including sharing in the burdens and the benefits of the dog and holding themselves out to the world as its owner. Pippin v. Fink , 350 N.J. Super. 270, 274, 794 A.2d 893 (2002). Evidence pertinent to establishing ownership may include ownership of the mother, certification of registration, exclusive possession, or the exercise of control.

  2. Richmond v. Martianou

    No. A-0773-22 (App. Div. Jan. 3, 2024)

    Arnold testified without contradiction that he purchased Kano and cared for the dog for more than a year. See Pippin v. Fink, 350 N.J.Super. 270, 273-74 (App. Div. 2002) (considering the person who purchased and cared for a dog when determining the dog's owner).

  3. Carabello v. Carpenter

    DOCKET NO. A-3751-15T2 (App. Div. Sep. 5, 2017)

    The trial judge found defendant was not an owner and that as a "keeper" of the dog, she would have to know the dog had a vicious propensity to be liable under common law negligence. In Pippin v. Fink, 350 N.J. Super. 270, 274 (App. Div. 2002), we considered whether the life partner of a dog's owner was an "owner" within the narrow definition of "owner" used under the strict liability statute. As we noted, the definition in that statute "serves a narrow[] purpose of eliminating scienter in a civil action to impose strict liability in favor of a bite victim."