When it comes to determining liability in dog bite cases, states employ a variety of different approaches. Most commonly, states will either apply a \u201cstrict liability\u201d standard or a \u201cnegligence\u201d standard. Many states also require a plaintiff to prove that the dog\u2019s owner knew of an animal\u2019s aggressive tendencies.<\/p>\n
In Florida dog bite cases, a dog\u2019s owner is held strictly liable for injuries caused by their animal, regardless of the dog\u2019s history or aggression. A recent case<\/a> illustrates the difference between a strict liability standard and a negligence standard in dog bite cases.<\/p>\n The Case Facts<\/strong><\/p>\n The defendant\u2019s dog bit the plaintiff as he approached the animal with an extended hand. As it turns out, the dog had bitten several other people, and had drawn blood during two of those incidents. The dog was usually kept confined within the defendant\u2019s backyard, and on the fence outside the defendant\u2019s home there was a sign stating \u201cBeware of Dog.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The case proceeded to trial under both negligence and strict liability theories. However, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his negligence claims, moving only on the strict liability claims. Under the state\u2019s strict liability scheme, the owner of a dog could be liable regardless of the owner\u2019s negligence if the owner knew of the dog\u2019s tendency to attack or bite.<\/p>\n The court, however, believed the plaintiff\u2019s claim to be one of negligence and instructed the jury accordingly. The jury determined that the defendant was not negligent, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the lower court\u2019s decision was reversed based on the court\u2019s failure to correctly apply the strict liability law. The appellate court explained that the court should have had the jury determine if the dog had vicious tendencies and, if so, if the defendant knew of those tendencies.<\/p>\n Florida\u2019s Dog Bite Statute<\/strong><\/p>\n Florida dog bite law is contained in Florida Statutes section 767.04<\/a>, and is quite favorable to plaintiffs. The statute provides that a dog\u2019s owner is liable to anyone who is injured by their animal \u201cregardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners\u2019 knowledge of such viciousness.\u201d<\/p>\n To recover under this theory, the plaintiff must be legally present where the bite occurred. This includes, however, being invited onto the defendant\u2019s property. Additionally, a defendant\u2019s liability can be reduced by any negligence on the plaintiff\u2019s part, for example, if the plaintiff was taunting the dog when it attacked. Finally, if the dog\u2019s owner has posted a sign stating \u201cBad Dog\u201d on their property, then strict liability will not apply, and the plaintiff must show that the defendant was negligent to establish liability.<\/p>\n Have You Been Attacked by a Dog?<\/strong><\/p>\n If you have recently been bitten or attacked by a dog, you may be entitled to monetary compensation through a Florida dog bite lawsuit. The dedicated South Florida personal injury lawyers at the law firm of Cecere Santana have decades of experience bringing a wide variety of cases on behalf of their injured clients. We understand the substantive law that governs Florida dog bite claims, and what we must prove to succeed in your case. To learn more, call 800-753-5529 to schedule your free consultation today.<\/p>\n See Additional Blog Posts:<\/strong><\/p>\n In Drunk Driving Accidents, Bar May Also be Responsible<\/a>, South Florida Injury Attorneys Blog, October 9, 2018.<\/p>\n