RICHARD KEYSER, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Richard Keyser appealed the dismissal of his complaint after being bitten by a rattlesnake kept in an unlocked box at a service station. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that under strict liability doctrine for wild animals, the plaintiff stated a viable claim and his alleged failure to exercise reasonable care did not bar recovery as a matter of law at the motion to dismiss stage.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that under strict liability doctrine for wild animals, the plaintiff stated a viable cause of action. The plaintiff's alleged failure to realize the dangers involved does not bar recovery at the motion to dismiss stage; dismissal is improper because the complaint's allegations must be accepted as true and reasonable inferences drawn in the plaintiff's favor.
[1] For the purposes of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, all allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true and all reasonable inferences are…
[2] The doctrine of strict liability for wild animals does not require a plaintiff to allege specific acts of negligence on the part of the defendant.
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“For the purposes of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, allegations of the complaint are assumed to be true and all reasonable inferences are allowed in favor of the plaintiff's case.”
Establishes the standard of review applicable to motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Yearty kept a collection of snakes for public display at his service station. Plaintiff Keyser put his hand into an unlocked box containing …
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 Failure To State A Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
The plaintiff appeals an order dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice. The second amended complaint al leged that the defendant Yearty kept a collection of snakes for public display at his service station. The plaintiff put his hand in the unlocked box of snakes and was bitten by a rattlesnake. The other defendants are alleged to be vicariously liable. In his order, the Circuit Judge recited that the second amended complaint failed to state a cause of action and reflected negligent conduct by the plaintiff precluding his recovery as a matter of law.
While one might reasonably question the judgment of a person who puts his hand in a box of snakes, we must reverse. The second amended complaint alleges that in putting his hand in the unlocked box, the plaintiff did not realize the dangers involved. For the purposes of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, allegations of the complaint are assumed to be true and all reasonable inferences are allowed in favor of the plaintiff’s case. Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, Fla. 1972, 262 So. 2d 881. Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that the plaintiff could not succeed.
Under the doctrine of strict liability established for wild animals in Isaacs v. Powell, Fla.App.1972, 267 So. 2d 864, the plaintiff is not required to allege specific acts of negligence on the part of the defendant. In that case, this court adopted § 515 of the Restatement of Torts which stated:
“‘(1) A plaintiff is not barred from recovery by his failure to exercise reasonable care to observe the propinquity of a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal or to avoid harm to his person, land or chattels threatened by it.
(2) A plaintiff is barred from recovery by intentionally and unreasonably subjecting himself to the risk that a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal will do harm to his person, land or chattels.’ (Italics supplied)”
As the facts of the case are developed, it may appear as a matter of law that the plaintiff’s conduct falls within the scope of section (2) quoted above. However, at this juncture, the second amended complaint reflects no more than the conduct deemed by section (1) as insufficient to bar a recovery.
The order of dismissal with prejudice is hereby reversed.
MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nichols v. MoAmCO Corp. & Silco Corp., 311 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…today’s date, I am enclosing my check in the sum of $40,000 ernest money and am prepared to escrow the $405,000, upon advise as to how you wish this to be done. I am ready to close at any time.” . Keyser v. Phillips Petroleum Co., Fla.App.2d 1973, 287 So. 2d 364. . We express no opinion as to whether there was a contract between Nichols and MoAmCo, this being a matter for determination by the trial court.…
Authorities Cited
- Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. The State of Fla. ex rel. Rom W. Powell, 262 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1972)
- Isaacs v. Powell, 267 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)