CARMEN OLAVE, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD F. HOWARD AND VIRGINIA HOWARD, 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.
Plaintiff sued landlords for common law liability after being bitten by a dog that escaped from their tenant's yard. The trial court granted summary judgment for the landlords, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that a landlord is not liable for injuries caused by a tenant's dog absent actual knowledge or imputed knowledge of the dog's vicious nature.
A landlord has no liability to third persons for injuries caused by a tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's vicious nature or such knowledge can be imputed to the landlord. The court rejected the argument that any dog with pit bull ancestry is automatically deemed vicious under the law.
[1] A landlord is not liable for injuries caused by a tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's vicious nature or such knowledge can be imputed to th…
[2] A landlord may be liable for injuries caused by a tenant's dog if the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's vicious nature and has the ability to remove or abate the…
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“unless a landlord has actual knowledge of the vicious nature of a tenant's dog, or such knowledge can be imputed to the landlord, as in Anderson, there is no liability to third persons for injuries caused by the tenant's dog.”
Establishes the primary legal standard for landlord liability for tenant's animals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff was bitten by a mixed-breed dog (part pit bull) that escaped from a fenced backyard when the tenant, Thomas Johnson, accidentally left the g…
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 Imputed Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, who was plaintiff below, appeals an adverse summary judgment.
Plaintiff was bitten by a dog which had escaped from a fenced back yard when the owner, Thomas Johnson, accidentally left the gate open. Johnson was a tenant of the appellees, Donald and Virginia Howard. Plaintiff brought suit against the dog owner under section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1987), and those claims remain pending below. Plaintiff also sued the landlords, asserting common law liability for allowing the tenant to maintain a dangerous animal on the demised premises. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the landlords and we affirm.
The tenant’s dog was a mixed breed that was part pit bull. The present case closely resembles Bessent v. Matthews, 543 So. 2d 438, 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), in which the court stated in part:
In the instant case, however, there is no evidence in the record that the appel-lee knew or had reason to know that his tenant’s dog was vicious. It is well established that unless a landlord has actual knowledge of the vicious nature of a tenant’s dog, or such knowledge can be imputed to the landlord, as in Anderson, there is no liability to third persons for injuries caused by the tenant’s dog. See generally, 81 A.L.R.3d 638, Landlord’s Liability to Third Person For Injury Resulting From Attack By Dangerous Or Vicious Animal Kept By Tenant. If a landlord does have actual knowledge and also has the ability to remove or abate the hazard posed by the dog, then liability may exist. See Vasques v. Lopez, 509 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). We are not prepared to say, as appellant requests, that any dog with a trace of pit bull ancestry is under the law deemed vicious.
Having concluded that the summary judgment was correctly entered, we need not reach the alternative contention that the landlords had appropriately discharged their duties in that the tenant’s house and fenced back yard were adequate to safely house the dog. See Kilpatrick v. Sklar, 548 So. 2d 215, 218 (Fla.1989).2
Affirmed.
. Anderson v. Walthal, 468 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
. Appellees also contend that any duty on the part of the landlord would not extend to a person using the public sidewalk in front of the demised premises. We agree with appellant that the issue was not raised by the motion for summary judgment and is not properly before us.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Giaculli v. Ivory Bright, 584 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…n attack by a bad dog owned by a tenant if the landlord has actual knowledge of the vicious nature of the tenant’s dog or such knowledge can be imputed to the landlord2 and the landlord has the ability to control the dog’s presence. Olave v. Howard, 547 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Bessent v. Matthews, 543 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Vasques v. Lopez, 509 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The court below found that there was no showing that the landlord or owners had knowledge that the pit bull was vici…
-
Smith v. Reppond, 555 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…premises on which injuries are inflicted by a dog owned by another. See Anderson v. Walthal, 468 So. 2d 291, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Christie v. Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc., 287 So. 2d 359, 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). See also, e.g., Olave v. Howard, 547 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Bessent v. Matthews, 543 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Vasques v. Lopez, 509 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Reversed and remanded for a new trial. CAMPBELL, C.J. and SCHEB, J., concur.…
-
Five Bros. Constr. Corp. v. Haydee J. Ferrer and Francisco Ferrer, 563 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…s Haydee and Francisco Ferrer, who were plaintiffs below in a dog bite case. There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that appellant landlord knew of the presence of tenant’s dog and its vicious propensities, see Olave v. Howard, 547 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), Vasques v. Lopez, 509 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Anderson v. Walthal, 468 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and the trial court properly overruled landlord’s [*728] motions for directed verdict and post-trial motions. As…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kilpatrick v. Sklar, 548 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1989)
- Vasques v. Marcelino Lopez, 509 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Seneca B. Anderson and Martha P. Anderson v. Walthal, 468 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- City OF W. Palm Beach v. Lipkin, 468 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Bessent v. Matthews, 543 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)