LOUISE PLANT, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS M. PODESTA, ET AL., 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 court affirmed the judgment of no liability for the dog owners but reversed the denial of their motion to tax costs.
A dog-bite victim sued the dog owners, who were found not liable by a jury. The owners sought to tax costs, which the trial court denied because the c…
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 the appeal of these consolidated cases, a dog-bite victim seeks reversal of a final judgment entered after a jury’s finding of no liability on the part of appellee dog owners. The dog owners cross-appeal the court’s subsequent denial of their motion to tax costs. Finding the trial court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict as to liability, we affirm the trial court’s final judgment. Both the plaintiff’s provocation of the dog and the prominence and readability of the posted warning sign were questions properly to be determined by the triers of fact. Reed v. Bowen, 512 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1987); Belcher Yacht, Inc. v. Stickney, 450 So. 2d 1111 (Fla.1984).
Further, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evidentiary admissions and exclusions. See Vega v. City of Pompano Beach, 551 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), review denied, 564 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1990); Allen Morris Co. v. McNally, 305 So. 2d 79, 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
On the defendants’ cross-appeal, we reverse the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion to tax costs. That motion was denied on the grounds that the costs had already been paid by defendants’ insurance carrier. Subsequent to the trial court’s ruling on the motion, the Florida supreme court observed, in Aspen v. Bayless, 564 So. 2d 1081 (Fla.1990), that costs may be properly recoverable by a prevailing party even though the costs are paid or advanced by the party’s insurance company.
Accordingly, the final judgment in defendants’ favor is affirmed. The order denying defendants’ motion to tax costs is re versed and remanded for the determination of costs due the defendants.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arellano v. Broward K-9/Miami K-9 Servs., Inc., 207 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…l admit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact, and not taken from them and passed upon by the judge as a question of law.”); Plant v. Podesta, 579 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). A jury might very well decide that Arellano’s actions, in whole or in part, were a proximate cause of the incident, thereby reducing or even eliminating K-9’s liability. In our view, the statute plainly contemplates the role of t…
Authorities Cited
- Aspen v. Bayless, 564 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1990)
- Belcher Yacht, Inc. v. Stickney, 450 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Miller, 512 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1987)
- The Allen Morris Co. v. McNALLY, 305 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Vega v. City OF Pompano Beach, 551 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)