JAMES ALLEN AND JOSEPHINE H. ALLEN, APPELLANTS,
v.
RANDOLPH S. ENSLOW, PEGGY ENSLOW AND STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
The Allens appealed a dismissal of their negligence action against landlords whose tenant kept a dog that attacked the husband while he was riding his motorcycle on a public street. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that landlords cannot be held liable for injuries occurring on public rights-of-way caused by a tenant's dog, distinguishing the case from situations where injury occurs on the landlord's own property.
Landlords cannot be held liable for injuries caused by a tenant's dog when the injury occurs on a public right-of-way rather than on the landlords' property. The court declined to extend the holding in Christie v. Anchorage Yacht Haven to impose liability in such circumstances.
[1] A landlord is generally not liable for injuries caused by a tenant's animal when the injury occurs on a public right-of-way, even if the landlord knew or should have know…
[2] A landowner's duty to warn of a dangerous condition on the property does not typically extend to injuries occurring off the premises.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“because the incident occurred on a public right-of-way and not on appellees' property, liability could not be imposed on them and their insurer”
States the trial court's reasoning for granting the motion to dismiss
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Allen was injured by a dog that ran into the street and attacked him as he rode his motorcycle. The dog was kept by the Enslows, who were tenant…
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 Landowner Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final order of the circuit court, granting appellees’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.
Appellants are husband and wife who filed a complaint alleging that the husband was injured by a dog which ran into the street and attacked him as he rode by on his motorcycle. In addition to counts in strict liability against the dog owners (Chapter 767, Florida Statutes), the complaint alleged that the dog owners’ landlords negligently permitted the dog to be kept on their property when they “knew or should have known that persons passing on the streets adjacent to said premises may be attacked by said animal.” The trial court granted the appellee landlords’ motion and dismissed the complaint as to them, finding that because the incident occurred on a public right-of-way and not on appellees’ property, liability could not be imposed on them and their insurer. Appellants urge that we extend the holding in Christie v. Anchorage Yacht Haven, 287 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), to this case. In Christie, our sister court held that where there was evidence (1) that the landowner knew that a dangerous dog was kept loose on the premises by an employee’s widow, (2) that persons regularly used a path across the property, (3) that such persons would not be aware of the risk involved, and (4) that the owner failed to warn of such dangerous condition or risk, a jury question was raised as to the landowner’s liability in negligence to one injured by the dog on the landlord’s premises. As appellants recognize, this court has refused to extend Christie to a situation where plaintiff was injured on her own property by wild animals alleged to be negligently maintained on the defendant landowner’s adjacent property by his employee, and with the defendant’s knowledge or notice, absent any interest in or use of the animals by the defendant landowner. O’Steen v. Kemmerer, 344 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). We are not persuaded by appellants’ attempt to distinguish O’Steen. That decision, precluding recovery in such circumstances by one injured on her own property, cannot in our opinion be reconciled with the asserted liability of the landlord in this case to one injured on the street by a tenant’s dog. Cf., collected cases, Anno. 81 A.L.R.3d 638.
The order is affirmed.
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ny Tran v. Bancroft, 648 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…he actions of dogs, no Florida court has held that a landowner has a duty to prevent injuries that might occur when a tenant’s animal escapes the leased premises and causes injury away from the property. In a case directly on point, Allen v. Enslow, 423 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the tenant’s dog ran into a pubhc street and attacked a motorcyclist. The court held that the landlord was not responsible for the attack by the tenant’s dog that occurred (1) outside the leased premises and (2) on property not…
-
Sparks v. Kintzing, 487 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Allen v. Enslow, 423 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see Rotolante v. Dasilva, 460 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Martinez v. Schiffman, 402 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); O’Steen v. Kemmerer, 344 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).…
-
McCRAY v. Myers, 614 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…the roadway. Myers and Bacon direct us to many cases supporting the general rule of nonliability for off-premises injuries. See e.g., Britz v. LeBase, 258 So. 2d 811 (Fla.1971); Dawson v. Ridgley, 554 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Allen v. Enslow, 423 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Pedigo v. Smith, 395 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Evans v. Southern Holding Corp., 391 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 399 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1980). We find significant and persuasive appellees’ argument in response to…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Christie v. Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc., 287 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- O'Steen v. Kemmerer, 344 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)