BARRWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC., INC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JEFFREY MASER AND KAREN MASER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS AND NEXT FRIENDS OF ALEXANDER MASER, A MINOR INCOMPETENT, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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 landowner can be held liable for damages caused by a dog on its property if there is sufficient evidence that the landowner knew of the vicious dog's presence and had the ability to control the premises. The trial court's rulings regarding the verdict form and damage reduction were also affirmed.
A minor was attacked and bitten by a dog on property owned and controlled by Barrwood Homeowners Assoc., Inc. (BARR). BARR was sued in a negligence ac…
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 Allocation Of Fault cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, Judge.
Appellant, Barrwood Homeowners Assoc., Inc. (BARR), appeals the final judgment entered by the trial court after an adverse jury verdict in a negligence action brought on behalf of appellee Alexander Maser, a minor. The incident, a dog attack and biting, occurred on the property owned and controlled by BARR, customarily referred to as the “common area.”
Appellees cross-appeal the trial court’s ruling that the dog owner would be put on the verdict form and that appellees’ damage award would be reduced by the dog owner’s percentage of fault, even though the dog owner was not named as a party in the trial court proceeding. We affirm the trial court’s rulings in all respects.
We affirm based on Vasques v. Lopez, 509 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), wherein this court held that a landowner could be held liable for damages caused by a dog on its property where there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could determine that the landlord had knowledge of the vicious dog’s presence and had the ability to control the premises. The evidence in this ease was sufficient to allow a jury to determine whether or not the association was aware of the dog’s vicious propensities.
We distinguish this case from Tran v. Bancroft, 648 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), wherein this court held that a non-owner (landlord) was not liable for the injuries caused by its tenant’s dog on property away from the leased premises and not owned by the landlord.
We affirm with respect to the issue raised on cross-appeal based on sections 768.81(3) and 768.81(4), Florida Statutes (1993), and Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1993).
Affirmed.
POLEN, J., and SPEISER, MARK A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanzare v. Daniela Varesi and Edward Varesi, 681 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…Homeowners Association (the Association) in this “dog-bite” case. Sanzare v. Varesi, 668 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). After farther consideration, and in keeping with this court’s recent opinion in Barrwood Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Maser, 675 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), we reverse the summary judgment. Appellant, Richard Sanzare, was bitten by a dog owned by two people who leased a residence in the Coconut Key community. The bite occurred while Sanzare walked his own dog on a non-dedicated str…
Authorities Cited
- Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993)
- Vasques v. Marcelino Lopez, 509 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Ny Tran v. Bancroft, 648 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)