SAFETY CABS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,

v.

BERT W. WEISS ET UX., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Sol Brandeis and Lona Brandeis v. Felcher, 211 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
  …tock, or to persons.” We begin from, the premise that liability for non-bite damages suffered in an attack by a dog is within the contemplation of the statute. Sweet v. Josephson, Fla.1965, 173 So. 2d 444. See also Josephson v. Sweet, Fla.App.1964, 173 So. 2d 463. It has been said that liability imposed by this section is an absolute liability as an insurer and is not contingent upon a showing of the negligence of the owner, or scienter. See Knapp v. Ball, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 808; Vandercar v. David, Fl…
• English v. Seachord, 243 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
  …. Liability for non-bite damages suffered in an attack by a dog is within the contemplation of Section 767.01 of the statute, and under that section knowledge of the vicious propensities of the dog is not necessary. Josephson v. Sweet, Fla.App.1964, 173 So. 2d 463, aff’d 173 So. 2d 444; and Brandéis v. Felcher, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 606. Nor may an owner raise contributory negligence as such as a defense to an action for injuries, although assumption of the risk, usually based on provocation or aggravation…
• Nell Lane Knapp v. Lygia L. Ball, 175 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
  …67.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. provides: “Owners of dogs shall be liable for any damage done by their dogs to sheep or other domestic animals or livestock, or to persons.” See Sweet v. Josephson, Fla.1965, 173 So. 2d 444; Josephson v. Sweet, Fla.App.1964, 173 So. 2d 463; Vandercar v. David, Fla.App.1957, 96 So. 2d 227, 66 A.L.R.2d 912; Ferguson v. Gangwer, 140 Fla. 704, 192 So. 196. Liability of the owner of a dog for such injuries under § 767.01 is based on an obligation as an insurer rather than on negligence, a…

Authorities Cited

• Mungin v. State, 109 Fla. 310 (Fla. 1933)