Dog Bite Law

Overview

In Florida, a dog bite victim has several legal grounds to recover damages: common law liability or "scienter," the dog bite statute, negligence, negligence per se, and intentional injury. To learn more about all of these causes of action, read below and see Legal Rights of Dog Bite Victims in the USA.

The dog bite statute, which imposes strict liability upon dog owners for a bite that causes injury to a human being, is as follows:

767.04  Dog owner's liability for damages to persons bitten.--The owner of any dog that 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 owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners' knowledge of such viciousness. However, any negligence on the part of the person bitten that is a proximate cause of the biting incident reduces the liability of the owner of the dog by the percentage that the bitten person's negligence contributed to the biting incident. A person is lawfully upon private property of such owner within the meaning of this act when the person is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when the person is on such property upon invitation, expressed or implied, of the owner. However, the owner is not liable, except as 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." The remedy provided by this section is in addition to and cumulative with any other remedy provided by statute or common law. 

Dog owners also are liable for damage inflicted upon other dogs, on cats or any other "domestic animal."

767.01  Dog owner's liability for damages to persons, domestic animals, or livestock.--Owners of dogs shall be liable for any damage done by their dogs to a person or to any animal included in the definitions of "domestic animal" and "livestock" as provided by section 585.01.

The Florida definition of "domestic animal" is as follows:

(10) "Domestic animal" shall include any equine or bovine animal, goat, sheep, swine, domestic cat, dog, poultry, ostrich, emu, rhea, or other domesticated beast or bird. The term "animal," as used in this chapter, shall include wild or game animals whenever necessary to effectively control or eradicate dangerous transmissible diseases or pests which threaten the agricultural interests of the state.

Negligence per se

Florida follows the legal doctrine of negligence per se. This doctrine states that negligence arises from the violation of any statute which establishes a duty to take precautions to prptect particular classes of people from a particular injury or type of injury. The violation constitutes negligence per se. Torres v. Offshore Prof. Tour 629 So 2d. 192 (Fla. 3d Dist. DCA 1993); DeJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line. Railroad Co., 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973).

In many cities, the city ordinance merely adopts the county ordinance. A violation of the county law therefore is a violation of the city law. For example, the city of Fort Meyers has its own municipal ordinances (Fort Meyers Code of Ordinances) but has adopted the Lee County Animal Control Ordinance:

Fort Meyers Code of Ordinances

Sec. 5-26.  Adoption of county regulations.

    (a)     Lee County Code, Article III, Lee County Animal Control Ordinance, is hereby adopted by the city for the control of animals in the city in lieu of former ordinances, a complete copy of which is attached as "Exhibit A" and filed in the office of the city clerk.

    (b)     The city police department will be designated the animal control enforcement agency at the discretion of the chief of police.

Lee County Code of Ordinances

Sec. 6-38.  Nuisance animals.

It shall be unlawful for any owner or owner's agent to fail to care for or control owned animals, or to allow animal or animals to become a nuisance. 

       (a)     It shall be unlawful for: ...

             (2)     Any animal to roam at-large.

A different Lee County ordinance expands on section 6-38:

Sec. 6-41.  Prohibiting animals from running at-large.

    (a)     It shall be unlawful for any person owning or having possession, charge, custody or control of any animal, including but not limited to domestic, livestock, farm, wildlife or fowl raised in captivity, to permit the animal to stray, run, go or roam at-large in or upon any public street, sidewalk, school grounds, in the area of school vehicles, beaches, parks or on the private property of others without the consent of the owner of such property. 

Landlord liability

Attacks that occur upon the landlord's premises

A landlord has a duty to protect its tenants in connection with a vicious dog of which the landlord has knowledge. In White v. Whitworth, 509 So. 2d 378, 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), the court stated, "A landlord who recognizes and assumes the duty to protect co-tenants from dangerous propensities of a tenant's pet is required to undertake reasonable precautions to protect co-tenants from reasonably foreseeable injury occasioned thereby." See also Vasquez v. Lopez, 509 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (holding that landlord may be liable for tenant's dog if landlord knows dog is vicious and has sufficient control of premises to protect plaintiff).

Where the lease agreement includes rules which specifically prohibit certain breeds of dogs, the landlord can be held liable for hi's failure to enforce those rules despite knowledge that prohibited dogs reside upon the premises. For example, in Ramirez v. M.L. Management Co., Inc., 920 So.2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), the landlord was aware that a tenant's pit bulls had threatened other tenants, but the landlord did not evict the owner of the pit bulls. When they attacked a child who was on adjacent property, the landlord was held liable.

However, there are exceptions to liability. There might not be liability where the victim is a trespasser or exceeded her invitation to be on the premises. For example, in Anderson v. Walthal, 468 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), a woman coming to a home for a business purpose went around to the back of the home where a dog bit her. The landlord claimed that the woman had exceeded her "invitation" by wandering into an area behind the home where the dog was located. The court held that a jury question existed as to whether the woman had exceeded the scope of her business invitation.

Attacks that occur off the landlord's premises

In Tran v. Bancroft, 648 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), it was held that a landlord has no duty to third parties for injuries caused by a tenant's dog where those injuries occur off the leased premises. In Tran, a landlord leased a single family home to a tenant who owned a dog known to the landlord to be vicious and over which the landlord could have exercised control. The dog jumped over the fence and bit a child in the neighboring yard. It was held that the victim had no remedy because the landlord had no duty to protect against harm occuring off the landlord's premises.

However, a landlord can be held liable for a dog attack that occurs off the premises under certain circumstances. In Ramirez v. M.L. Management Co., Inc., 920 So.2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), a landlord was held liable for a dog attack which occured off the premises but in an adjacent park that the landlord had advertised as an amenity of the premises. The court reasoned that "there was evidence from which a jury could conclude that the landlord "extended its operation" to the park, by advertising it as an amenity next to the complex and inviting its tenants to take advantage of it as part of the amenities."

Special rules for children

Two issues often arise when the dog bite victim is a child. One is comparative negligence, namely whether the child's conduct provoked the dog, thereby making the child a cause of the accident and reducing his recovery of damages. Florida has determined that a child under the age of six is conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing such negligence. Swindell v. Hellkamp, 242 So.2d 708 (Fla. 1970). When the child is six or older, the jury must decide whether he was capable of appreciating and avoiding the danger; if so, he can be regarded as comparatively negligent. Turner v. Seegar, 151 Fla. 643, 10 So.2d 320 (1942).

The other is whether the child's recovery can be reduced because his parent failed to adequately supervise him, thereby making the parent a cause of the accident and reducing the compensation payable by the dog owner or other liable party. The jury is entitled to apportion fault to the parent even where the parent is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Y.H. Investments, Inc., v. Godales, 690 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1997).

In cases where the parent is comparatively liable because he failed to supervise his child, but the parent is not insured, there are two important rules. If the parent is without liability insurance, then parental immunity is not waived and the child cannot sue the parent. Ard v. Ard, 414 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 1982). Similarly, because of the parent's lack of insurance, the dog owner or other liable party cannot make a claim against the parent for "contribution" -- i.e., a claim that the parent pay some of the compensation that the dog owner had to pay to the child. Joseph v. Quest, 414 So. 2d 1063, 1065 n.5 (Fla. 1982).

Litigation forms and other materials for attorneys

www.dogbitelaw.com and each of its sections and products, including Dog Bite Law, The Dog Bite Law Adviser, Dog Bite Litigation Forms, What To Do If Your Dog Is Injured Or Killed, Avoiding Liability When You Train, Shelter or Adopt-Out, Anatomy of a Dog Bite Case, and the foregoing text, are (c) 1999-2009 Kenneth M. Phillips. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part prohibited except where advance permission is granted in writing. Please read the disclaimer and our rules for linking and quoting. Reporters seeking interviews are welcome to contact us by clicking here.