Florida dog bite law differs from other states in that it does not matter if the dog has a history of being vicious or if the owner of the dog has knowledge of any prior incidents of viciousness. The reason this is important, and included in the statute, is because at common law, it was a defense if the owner did not have reason to believe to the dog was likely to bite another person.moreAs our Broward dog bite injury lawyers can explain, at common law, as taught to every law student in America, every dog gets one free bite. This means that if a dog owner had no reason to know their dog was dangerous, they would not be dangerous; however, if it happened again, they would be liable. The Florida state statue listed above specifically did away with common law defense.

In a recent article from ABC, we see an example of serious dog bite injury. In this case, a man was attacked by a dog in Temple Terrace, Florida and is now searching for the dog’s owner. The victim in this accident is a college student who was attacked by a dog at a local dog park.

He was playing with his puppy and throwing a ball to it when he says another dog attacked him without warning. It jumped at him and ripped his shorts or shirt as it bit him and clawed him on various parts of his body. He was left with tattered clothing and covered in mud and his own blood. The owner of the dog asked for his number and allegedly said she would contact him, but he he never heard from her again. He went to the hospital and was treated but is left with substantial medical bills and in serious pain and is looking for the owner of the dog, so he can obtain the financial compensation to which he claims he is lawfully entitled.

He was in a public place during the accident, as noted in the article, and, therefore, would fall within terms of the of Florida dog bite liability statue as discussed above. He is hoping that after his story is made public, the owner of the dog will contact him and make arrangements to compensate him for his personal injuries. The local department of animal control is also looking for the dog owner, and this is one of four open cases they had where they were searching for a dog’s owner following a dog bite as of the time of this article.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Man attacked by dog in Temple Terrace Dog Park now looking for owner, May 12, 2017, By Lauren Rozla, ABC Action News More Blog Entries:

Manufacturers Recall Defective Bikes for Safety Hazards, March 29, 2017, Motorcycle Accident Lawyer Blog

F.S. 767.01 specifically says owners of dogs “shall be liable for any damage done by their dogs to a person.” There is a separate statute, F.S. 767.04, that states the owner of a dog who bites any lawfully present person is liable for the actions of the dog – even if the owner had no prior indication the dog was vicious.

In a recent case out of Nebraska, a plaintiff and her husband sued the owner of two dogs who chased – but never bit or touched – them. As a result of being charged by the dogs (one in particular in the unfenced yard with no restraint), plaintiff fell backward and injured her elbow.

In Grammer v. Lucking, the question was question under state law whether the dogs had “chased” her under definitions recognized by state law, which grants exceptions for dogs who are merely acting in a playful or mischievous manner.

Plaintiff and her husband had been out for a stroll in their neighborhood when they neared defendant’s back yard. When they got within 20 feet, two dogs in the yard began to bark and growl. One was on a chain, the other was not. There was no fence or other barrier. When the dogs started to run toward the couple, the husband stepped in front of his wife to protect her.

The dog that was on a chain was not able to get near them. However, the other dog continued to run toward them. It ran passed the husband toward the wife. As it did so, the wife fell. However, once she fell, the dog stopped. Seconds later, the dog’s owner called them both inside.

Although the dog had not bitten, scratched or otherwise come in any contact with her, plaintiff was nonetheless injured and required medical attention.

The couple later sued under state law that imposes liability for dog owners for damages caused by their dogs when the dogs, “kill, wound, injure, worry or chase any person or persons.” In this case, plaintiffs allege the dogs chased them.

Defendants moved for summary judgment. Trial court judge considered the request, saying that to survive a summary judgment motion, plaintiff would need to show the dogs were chasing her in order to catch and harm her. Judge state no other facts would defeat the motion, and he didn’t consider whether the dogs had “injured” plaintiff. Trial court found that because the dogs didn’t intend to catch plaintiff, the owner couldn’t be found liable and granted defense motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs appealed directly to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which reversed.

The problem was the district court’s narrow focus on a single definition of the term “chase.” There are three definitions worth considering. The first, which the district court analyzed, means to follow persistently or quickly in order to catch or harm. But it could also mean “to make run away” or “to go in pursuit.”

Although the court had not yet considered the definition of the term “injure” in the context of the dog bite statute, our dog bite injury lawyers know it’s generally recognized to mean infliction of bodily hurt on someone or something.

While the Nebraska Supreme Court agreed with district court that the dogs hadn’t intended to catch plaintiff (the one unleashed dog stopped when she fell), there was a strong case to make that the dogs had made her to run away and/ or had gone in pursuit of her. She had suffered injury as a result.

Therefore, justices reversed and the case was remanded for trial.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Grammer v. Lucking, Jan. 15, 2016, Nebraska Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Two FPL Friends, Colleagues Killed in High Fog Truck Crash, Jan. 14, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog