TIMOTHY DENNIS HARRELL, A MINOR, BY DANIEL HARRELL, HIS BEST FRIEND, AND DANIEL HARRELL, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT W. SANDERS AND ESTELLE SANDERS, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
TIMOTHY DENNIS HARRELL, A MINOR, BY DANIEL HARRELL, HIS BEST FRIEND, AND DANIEL HARRELL, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
ROBERT W. SANDERS AND ESTELLE SANDERS, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
175 So. 2d 808
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1965)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 11 cases
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed. See Lee v. Hinson, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 166; Jackson v. Haney, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 719; and Griffis v. Du Bow, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 207.
SMITH, C. J., ALLEN, J., and SIL-VERTOOTH, LYNN N., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Leora Carroll and Martin Carroll v. Moxley, 241 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1970)…owner the insurer against damage by his dog with certain exceptions, departing from the common law doctrines grounded in negligence. See Romfh v. Berman, 56 So. 2d 127 (Fla.1951); Vandercar v. David, 96 So. 2d 227 (Fla.App.3rd, 1957); Knapp v. Ball, 175 So. 2d 808 (Fla.App.3rd, 1965). It is concluded that Fla.Stat. § 767.04, F. S.A., supersedes the common law, only in those situations covered by the statute. It is next contended that the statute is unconstitutional, as in violation of the Fla.Const. § 4, Dec…
-
Donner v. Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 358 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1978)…wner the insurer against damage by his dog with certain exceptions, departing from the common law doctrines grounded in negligence. See Romfh v. Berman, 56 So. 2d 127 (Fla.1951); Vandercar v. David, 96 So. 2d 227 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1957); Knapp v. Ball, 175 So. 2d 808 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1965). It is concluded that Fla.Stat. § 767.04, F.S.A., supersedes the common law, only in those situations covered by the statute. 241 So. 2d at 682. The Court then reversed in part the summary judgment finding that there existed a…
-
Sol Brandeis and Lona Brandeis v. Felcher, 211 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…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, Fla.App.1957, 96 So. 2d 227, 66 A.L.R.2d 912; Reid v. Nelson, 154 F. 2d 724 (5th Cir.1946). Liability, if any here, depends upon the question of whether the boy’s death is damage “done by” the appellees’ dogs, i. e. were the do…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffis v. DU BOW, 114 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- LEE v. Hinson, 160 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Jackson v. Haney, 124 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)