BOBBI FUSINSKI, D/B/A Q.T. CORP., PAINT & BODY & FRAME SERVICE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT B. ROBERTSON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed judgment against dog owner where plaintiff was bitten on owner's premises, holding that statutory immunity under Fla. Stat. § 767.04 applies when proper warning signs are posted.
A dog owner is immune from liability for injuries caused by the dog when the owner has displayed a prominent sign reading 'Bad Dog' in accordance with Florida Statutes § 767.04.
[1] A dog owner is statutorily immune from liability for injuries caused by the dog when the owner displays a prominent sign reading 'Bad Dog' on the premises in compliance with Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“nor shall any such owner be so liable if at the time of any such injury he had displayed in a prominent place on his premises a sign easily readable including the words 'Bad Dog'.”
Statutory immunity provision from Fla. Stat. § 767.04 (1979)
Robertson, a business invitee on Fusinski's premises, was bitten by a dog owned by Fusinski. The trial court found Fusinski liable despite finding tha…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dog Bite Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
The appellee, as plaintiff in the trial court, brought an action against the appellant-defendant, seeking recovery for injuries occasioned when he was on the appellant’s premises as a business invitee and was bitten by a dog.
The case was tried non-jury. The trial judge found for the plaintiff, found that the defendant was the owner of the dog, and that the defendant had posted signs in accordance with Florida Statutes. We reverse.
The trial court having found that the signs were posted in accordance with the Statutes, and in fact the record indicates that there were numerous signs on the premises, we find that no liability should have been imposed against the defendant in the trial court because of the provisions of Section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1979), which reads in part as follows:
“. . . nor shall any such owner be so liable if at the time of any such injury he had displayed in a prominent place on his premises a sign easily readable including the words ‘Bad Dog’.”
Also see: Romfh v. Berman, 56 So. 2d 127 (Fla.1951); Carroll v. Moxley, 241 So. 2d 681 (Fla.1970); Flick v. Malino, 356 So. 2d 904 (Fla.1st DCA 1978); Rattet v. Dual Security Systems, Inc., 373 So. 2d 948 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).
Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stickney v. Belcher Yacht, Inc., 424 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ability, total or partial, does not automatically flow. . We have found two cases in this district where the court was called upon to interpret section 767.04, neither of which conflicts with the conclusion reached herein. In Fusinski v. Robertson, 391 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), the action was treated as a statutory claim. In Rattet v. Dual Security Systems, Inc., 373 So. 2d 948, supra, the court did not decide whether appellant could proceed on a negligence claim because the issue was not properly prese…
-
Bobbi Fusinski v. Walters, 429 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); see Stickney v. Belcher Yacht, Inc., 424 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); compare Fusinski v. Robertson, 391 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), discussed in Stickney, 424 So. 2d at 967, n. 6.…
Authorities Cited
- Leora Carroll and Martin Carroll v. Moxley, 241 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1970)
- Romfh v. Berman, 56 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1951)
- Rattet v. Dual Sec. Sys., Inc., 373 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Flick v. Malino, 356 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)