AMELIA REGUEIRA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF JEANNETTE REGUEIRA, A MINOR, APPELLANT,
v.
BLANCA RAFART AND SERGIO RAFART, 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.
In a dog bite case, the court affirmed summary judgment for dog owners who posted a visible "Beware of Dog" sign, holding that the minor plaintiff's status as an invitee does not equitably estop the owners from asserting the statutory defense under Florida Statutes § 767.04 absent express disavowal of the warning.
A dog owner who posts a clearly visible "Beware of Dog" sign may assert the statutory defense under Florida Statutes § 767.04 even when the injured party is an invitee on the premises, unless the owner expressly advised the invitee to disregard the warning.
[1] A dog owner's posting of a visible warning sign is not equitably disavowed by the owner's invitation of the injured party onto the premises as an invitee, absent express…
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 intelligenceA minor plaintiff, a next-door neighbor and invitee on the defendants' premises, was bitten by the defendants' dog. The defendants had posted an easil…
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
PER CURIAM.
In this dog bite case, we are compelled to affirm the summary final judgment in favor of the defendants, owners of the dog, upon a holding that where, as here, the defendants posted an easily readable “Beware of Dog” sign in a prominent place on the premises where the dog was kept, and the minor plaintiff indisputably saw and understood the warning sign, the mere fact that the minor plaintiff, a next-door neighbor, was an invitee on the premises, does not mean that the defendants thereby implicitly disavowed the sign’s warning so as to equitably estop them from asserting the defense available to them under Section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1983).
Compare Noble v. Yorke, 490 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1986) (defendants who expressly advised plaintiffs to ignore sign warning them of bad dog because dog was secured may be equitably estopped to rely on sign) and Godbey v. Dresner, 492 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (defendant who expressly advised plaintiff that purpose of sign warning of bad dog was to keep people from wandering onto the property and who suggested that dog was innocuous may be equitably estopped to rely on sign) with Belcher Yacht, Inc. v. Stickney, 450 So. 2d 1111 (Fla.1984) (that plaintiff was a business invitee on premises where sign warning of bad dog displayed does not equitably estop defendant from relying on defense available under Section 767.04, Florida Statutes).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Noble v. Yorke, 490 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1986)
- Belcher Yacht, Inc. v. Stickney, 450 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1984)
- Godbey v. Rosalyn Dresner and Chester B. Triplett, 492 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)