Legal Question in Personal Injury in Florida

Re: liable for sons dog bite?

NOTE: This communication is not intended as and should not be interpreted as legal advice. Rather, it is intended solely as a general discussion of legal principles. You should not rely on or take action based on this communication without first presenting ALL relevant details to a competent attorney in your jurisdiction and then receiving the attorney�s individualized advice for you. By reading the �Response� to your question or comment, you agree that the opinion expressed is not intended to, nor does it, create any attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. If you do not agree, then stop right here, and do not read any further.

Legally, the doctrine of �strict liability,� would likely apply. Strict liability means that responsibility is imposed on a person who carries on certain activities that present an unusual risk to the public at large. Because certain activities create a higher than normal risk to society, persons who engage in such activities carry a higher than usual burden of responsibility for any consequences thereof.

The doctrine is based on the notion that liability should be placed on those who are in the best position to control risks of harm that arise from their activities. For example, a person who keeps a wild animal may be liable for any harm caused by these activities, whether or not that person exercised due care under the circumstances or not. More specifically however, the Florida Legislature has made owners of dogs strictly liable for all injuries or property damage they cause, regardless of the owner's due care in maintaining them, and without regard to the owner's knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities.

Several statutes impose this liability. The general dog injury statutes are �767.01 through �767.04, of the Florida Statutes and impose liability on a dog owner for all damages flowing from a dog bite that the plaintiff has suffered while lawfully (i.e. not trespassing) in a public or private place. Usually, The dog bite statute specifically exonerates an owner who, at the time of injury, has displayed in a prominent place on the premises an easily readable sign, including the words �bad dog, � �'Beware of Dogs,� or some similar legend, as long as it puts a visitor on notice that there are dogs on the premises that may bite. However, a �bad dog� sign is not a defense if the victim is under the age of six or if the damages are proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of the owner.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future at (305) 769-3000.

Warm Regards,

Randall L. Gilbert, Esq.

Re: liable for sons dog bite?

I don't see it as simple as Mr. Slater's response, but I agree that you and your son have a defense to any claim the injured girl may make against either of you. Mr. Gilbert's recitation of the law is on point, and if you are served with a demand letter or complaint (lawsuit), immediately seek the advice of an attorney experienced in defending personal injury claims and provide your auto insurance and homeowner's insurance carriers with a copy of the letter or complaint by fax and certified mail, return receipt requested.

Re: liable for sons dog bite?

Under the facts you have given I see no liability for either of you.