POCICA, ET UX
v.
BLUE GRASS SHOWS, INC., ET AL.
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 denied defendants' motion to dismiss and motion to strike punitive damages in a dog bite case. The plaintiffs alleged liability under Florida's dog bite statute and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the court found the complaint stated viable causes of action supporting punitive damages.
The court held that the complaint stated a cause of action under §767.04 (dog bite statute) and for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that sufficient allegations existed to permit a prayer for punitive damages.
[1] A defendant waives the right to file motions directed to a complaint by filing an answer.
[2] A complaint may state a cause of action under a dog-bite statute.
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“the complaint states a cause of action under §767.04, Florida Statutes, and a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that there are sufficient allegations to permit a prayer for punitive damages”
The court's ruling granting plaintiffs' position that the complaint stated viable causes of action and supported punitive damages.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs were injured by a dog owned or controlled by defendants Blue Grass Shows, Inc. and Dee Gould. The complaint alleged damages under Florida's…
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 Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came to be heard on August 1, 1972 in chambers at Tavares, Lake County, with counsel from the following firms present at the hearing — Provitola & McDermott, of DeLand, on *187behalf of the plaintiffs; Rush, Marshall, Bergstrom, Robinson & Chapin of Orlando, on behalf of both defendants; and Scruggs, Carmichael, Tomlinson, Roscow & Pridgeon of Gainesville, on behalf of the defendant, Dee Gould.
The hearing was called for a ruling by the court on the following motions filed by the defendants —
1. A motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
2. A motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages contained in count I.
Counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the complaint stated a cause of action for damages under the dog-bite statute (§767.04, Florida Statutes), and a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (32 Fla. Jur., Torts §15; Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So.2d 188), and that the allegations of die complaint were sufficient to allow a prayer for punitive damages (Kirksey v. Jernigan; Florida Standard Jury Instruction 6.12).
Counsel for the defendants contended that although the complaint probably stated a cause of action under the dog-bite statute, there were no allegations sufficient to allow a prayer for punitive damages (9 Fla. Jur., Damages §§114, 116, 121), and that the authority cited by counsel for the plaintiffs was factually distinguishable and that therefore no cause of action was stated for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The court is of the opinion that the defendant, Dee Gould, has waived her right to file motions directed to the complaint by filing an answer (Rule 1.140 - f, h, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure); the two motions, therefore, are deemed to have been made on behalf of the defendant, Blue Grass Shows, Inc., only.
After hearing extensive argument of counsel, the court is of the opinion that the complaint states a cause of action under §767.04, Florida Statutes, and a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that there are sufficient allegations to permit a prayer for punitive damages (authority cited by counsel for the plaintiffs, above).
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the above motions by the defendant, Blue Grass Shows, Inc., be and the same are hereby denied; it is further ordered and adjudged that the defendant, Blue Grass Shows, Inc. shall have twenty days from the date of this order to file an answer to the complaint.