|
|
|
LIABILITY FOR DOG BITES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Matthew Leto, Esquire and Addison Meyers, Esquire
In Florida, there are two theories that will lead to liability on the part of a dog owner for injuries caused by aggressive dogs. Florida Statute §767.04 imposes strictly liability to a dog owner where the dog bites any person while such person is on, or in, a public place, or lawfully on, or in, a private place, including the property of the dog owner. Additionally, the owner is still liable for damages suffered by persons bitten regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners' knowledge of such viciousness. The liability may be reduced on the basis of comparative negligence if the person who was bitten provoked the dog prior to the attack. Terry Plumbing & Home Services, Inc. v. Berry It should be noted that Florida Statute §767.04 also states that "the owner is not strictly liable, except to a person under the age of 6, or unless the damages are proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of the owner, if at the time of any such injury the owner had displayed in a prominent place on his or her premises a sign easily readable including the words "Bad Dog."
Secondly, a dog bite or dog injury victim may pursue the premises owner upon a common law liability claim. Florida Courts have determined that the premises owner may be liable for injuries resulting from an attack by a bad dog owned by a tenant if the landlord knows of the presence of the animal and its vicious propensity, and has the ability to control its presence. Knowledge can be either actual or constructive. Constructive knowledge is based on information that a party should have known. This may be proven with circumstantial evidence by either demonstrating a dangerous condition existed so long that one, through the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of its existence, or proving the dangerous condition occurred so regularly that it was foreseeable.
Florida Statute §767.11 defines a "dangerous dog" as "any dog that according to the records of the appropriate authority has aggressively bitten, attacked, endangered, or inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private property; has more than once severely injured or killed a domestic animal while off the dog owner's property; has been used primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting or is a dog trained for dog fighting; or has when unprovoked, chased, or approached a person upon the street, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, provided that such actions are attested to in a sworn statement by one or more persons and dutifully investigated by the appropriate authority.
Although liability can extend to a landowner in some cases, Florida courts have held that a landowner does not have a duty to prevent injuries that might occur when a tenant's animal escapes the leased premises and causes injury away from the property. For example, in Allen v. Enslow , a tenant's dog ran into a public street and attacked a motorcyclist. The court decided that the landlord was not responsible for the attack that occurred outside the leased premises and on property not owned by the landlord. Further, the court in Tran c. Bancroft decided not to extend the foreseeable zone of risk analysis, which is used in many property owner liability cases, to cases concerning the non-owner of a dog. However, in the recent decision of Ramirez v. M.L. Management Co., Inc., the Fourth District in Florida held that it was a question of fact whether a landowner was to be held liable for a dog attack that took place in a park which was adjacent to an apartment building. The distinguishable facts in this case were that the landlord specifically advertised for the park in their building's brochure as well as had a rule against pit bulls, which was the breed of the aggressive dog causing the injuries.
|
|
