Florida Dog Bite Law: Understanding Key Defenses Under Section 767.04, Florida Statutes

Dog Bite Defense Lawyer

Florida Dog Bite Law: Understanding Key Defenses Under Section 767.04, Florida Statutes

Florida has a well-established dog bite statute—Section 767.04, Florida Statutes—which imposes strict liability on dog owners when their animal bites another person. However, Florida law also provides specific defenses that can significantly reduce or eliminate liability in certain situations.

This article explores the key statutory defenses under Section 767.04, supported by Florida case law.

Strict Liability in Florida Dog Bite Cases

Under Section 767.04, a dog owner is liable if their dog bites a person who is lawfully on the property, regardless of whether the dog had shown previous aggression or the owner had knowledge of any vicious tendencies:

“The owner of any dog that bites any person while such person is in a public place or lawfully in a private place... is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners’ knowledge of such viciousness.”
— § 767.04, Fla. Stat.

Florida’s strict liability standard differs from the “one-bite rule” followed in some other states. However, the statute and courts recognize several important defenses that can mitigate or bar recovery.

1. Comparative Negligence of the Victim

A key defense available under Section 767.04 is comparative negligence. If the victim's own negligence contributed to the bite, their damages may be reduced proportionally.

Legal Basis:

“However, any negligence on the part of the person bitten that is a proximate cause of the biting incident reduces the liability of the owner...”
— § 767.04, Fla. Stat.

Case Law:

In Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Glover, 68 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1953), the Florida Supreme Court affirmed that contributory negligence could reduce a plaintiff’s recovery, a principle that continues today under the comparative fault standard.

Florida courts have allowed this defense where victims teased, provoked, or ignored warnings about the dog. For example, in Zanoletti v. Norle Props. Corp., 688 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), the court acknowledged that a jury could consider the conduct of the plaintiff when assessing fault and damages.

2. "Bad Dog" Sign Defense – Warnings on Private Property

A unique statutory defense applies if the bite occurs on the owner’s premises and they had prominently displayed a “Bad Dog” sign:

“...except as to a person who is under the age of 6 or unless the damages are proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of the owner...”
— § 767.04, Fla. Stat.

To qualify, the following must be true:

  • A “Bad Dog” sign was prominently displayed.

  • The injured person was over six years old.

  • The victim was lawfully on the premises.

  • The bite was not the result of the owner’s own negligence.

Case Law:

In Romfh v. Berman, 56 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1951), the Florida Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proper warning signage. The court found that when a warning is clearly posted and visible, and the injured party ignores it, the owner may not be held liable under the statute.

3. Trespassing and Lawful Presence

Section 767.04 only applies to persons who are lawfully on the premises. If the person bitten was trespassing, the statute may not impose liability.

“A person is lawfully upon private property... when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws of the United States, or when he is on such property upon invitation...”
— § 767.04, Fla. Stat.

Case Law:

In Fickling v. Nall, 113 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), the court found that a person unlawfully entering a yard without the owner’s knowledge or consent could be barred from recovery under Section 767.04.

Courts have also held that individuals who enter areas beyond the scope of invitation (e.g., going into a backyard uninvited) may be deemed trespassers, impacting their ability to recover.

Practical Considerations for Dog Owners

Dog owners should take proactive steps to preserve these defenses, including:

  • Posting clear and legible “Bad Dog” signs at all entrances.

  • Supervising dogs when guests or workers are on the property.

  • Documenting any warnings given to visitors.

  • Training dogs and keeping vaccination and behavioral records.

Conclusion

While Florida’s dog bite statute imposes strict liability, it also provides several important defenses. Whether you're a dog owner facing a claim or an injured party evaluating your rights, it’s essential to understand how comparative fault, signage, and the lawful status of the visitor impact the case.

If you’ve been involved in a dog bite incident in Florida, contact our experienced personal injury defense attorneys for a free consultation. We’ll assess your case and help you understand your legal options under Section 767.04.