KENNETH WHITE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, LINDA WHITE CARTER, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARSHA WHITWORTH, CHESTER SHACKELFORD, DELLA SHACKELFORD, AND SOUTHEASTERN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEES (TWO CASES)
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.
A minor plaintiff appealed from a directed verdict in a dog bite case against landlords who owned a duplex. The court reversed, holding that a jury question existed regarding whether the landlord defendants acted reasonably to protect their tenants from a pit bull with known dangerous propensities.
The court held that it was a jury question whether the landlord defendants acted reasonably to protect their tenants, and it was error to direct a verdict. The location of the injury (in the tenant's apartment rather than common areas) does not preclude liability when the landlord knew of the dog's dangerous propensities and failed to take reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable injury.
[1] A landlord who recognizes and assumes a duty to protect co-tenants from the dangerous propensities of a tenant's pet must undertake reasonable precautions to protect co-t…
[2] A jury may conclude that a landlord failed to take reasonable measures to protect tenants from a dangerous dog when the landlord had knowledge of the dog's propensities a…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A landlord who recognizes and assumes the duty to protect co-tenants from dangerous propensities of a tenant's pet is required to undertake reasonable precautions to protect co-tenants from reasonably foreseeable injury occasioned thereby.”
Establishes the legal standard for landlord liability regarding tenant pets with known dangerous propensities
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA pit bull owned by the defendants' daughter and kept in one apartment of a duplex attacked a minor plaintiff who rented the other apartment with his …
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 Foreseeability Of Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This is an appeal, by a minor plaintiff, from a final judgment following the entry of a post-verdict order, granting the defendants’ motion for directed verdict. We reverse and remand with direction to reinstate the jury verdict and to enter final judgment, nunc pro tunc, from the date of said verdict.
The plaintiff was injured by a pit bull owned by the defendants’ daughter and kept by her in one of two apartments in a duplex owned by the defendants. There was evidence that the defendants had actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities and that the defendants had assumed the responsibility for making the premises safe for the minor plaintiff and his family who rented the other apartment in the duplex from the defendants.
We hold that it was for the jury to decide if the defendants had acted reasonably to protect their tenants and the child; and that it was error for the trial court to take the matter out of the jury’s hands. See Christie v. Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc., 287 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Further, we specifically disagree with the basis for the order directing a verdict, which was that the injury occurred in the child’s apartment, as opposed to the common areas of the landlord defendants’ property; and we reject the trial court’s reliance upon Allen v. Enslow, 423 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The jury could conclude here that the landlord defendants failed to take reasonable measures — following the pit bull’s attacks and attempted attacks on other dogs and people — to prevent the pit bull from gaining entry into the child’s apartment. The record shows the defendants failed to provide a protective fence, separating that portion of the back yard upon which the child’s back door opened from that portion of the back yard in which the dog was allowed to roam.' It further shows that a week before the incident, the pit bull bit the child’s stepfather, and that one of the defendants, Mr. Shackelford, told the child’s stepfather that he would get rid of the dog within a week. The jury could have found the defendant should have done so, but did not.
In short, the incident involving the plaintiff here may have properly seemed inevitable to the jury, given the pit bull’s propensities and the existence of dogs in the child’s apartment. The injury occurred when another child opened the back door of the child’s apartment while the pit bull was in the common back yard, the pit bull then running into the apartment and attacking the dogs there. The child was injured while trying to stop the melee.
A landlord who recognizes and assumes the duty to protect co-tenants from dangerous propensities of a tenant’s pet is required to undertake reasonable precautions to protect co-tenants from reasonably foreseeable injury occasioned thereby. Cf. Lambert v. Doe, 453 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (landlord who recognizes and assumes duty to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal conduct must take reasonable steps to prevent injury from such conduct). The common law liability of persons other than dog owners for injuries caused by dogs has been settled by Noble v. Yorke, 490 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1986).
WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Peters, 534 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…umerous personal injury cases arising from attacks by pit bulls have been chronicled in the Southern Reporter. See, e.g., Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1985); Vasques v. Lopez, 509 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); White v. Whitworth, 509 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Ward v. Young, 504 So. 2d 528 (Fla.2d DCA 1987); Anderson v. Walthal, 468 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Manucy v. Manucy, 362 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Pit bulls have even been considered weapons in first-degree assaults…
-
Jemma L. Ramirez v. M.L. Mgmt. Co., Inc., 920 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…lord’s duty to the tenants could extend beyond the boundaries of the apartment complex. [*39] We have held that a landlord has a duty to protect its tenants in connection with a vicious dog of which the landlord has knowledge. In White v. Whitworth, 509 So. 2d 378, 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), we said: A landlord who recognizes and assumes the duty to protect co-tenants from dangerous propensities of a tenant’s pet is required to undertake reasonable precautions to protect co-tenants from reasonably foreseeable…
-
Am. Dog Owners Ass'n v. Dade Cnty., 728 F. Supp. 1533 (S.D. Fla. 1989)…App.1988) 6. Meyers v. Haskins, 140 A.D.2d 923, 528 N.Y.S.2d 738, 739 (1988) 7. Hampton v. Hammons, 743 P.2d 1053, 1054 (Okl.1987) 8. Vasques v. Lopez, 509 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) 9. White v. Whitworth, 509 So.2d 378, 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) 10. Champagne v. Spokane Humane Society, 47 Wash.App. 887, 737 P.2d 1279, 1280 (1987) 11. Ward v. Young, 504 So.2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) 12. American States Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 484 S…
Authorities Cited
- Noble v. Yorke, 490 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1986)
- Christie v. Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc., 287 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Donald J. Carrow, M.D. v. State, 453 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Allen v. Enslow, 423 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)