Because the Florida dog bite statute imposes strict liability, there cannot be comparative negligence on the victim’s part unless his conduct is more than a mistake:
“In a dog injury case, it is no defense that a plaintiff acted unreasonably (was contributorily negligent), unless his behavior was so blatant as to supersede the dog’s behavior as the legal or proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. In view of F.S. §§ 767.01 and 767.04, F.S.A. making an owner of a dog virtually an insurer of the dog’s conduct, the conduct on the plaintiff’s part superseding the behavior of the dog would have to be shown to be more than a mistake on the plaintiff’s part as to the intention of the dog to bite or attack him.” Smith v. Allison, ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. Court of Appeal, 1976).