Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...§ 588.15, Fla. Stat. The act defines an "owner" of livestock as any person "owning or having custody of or in charge of livestock." § 588.13(2), Fla. Stat. Confusion has prevailed in this case because the plaintiffs have proceeded upon the theory that Section 588.11, Florida Statutes (Chapter 25357, § 7, Laws of Florida (1949)), which reads as follows: The owner of legally enclosed land shall maintain in reasonable good condition the fence or enclosure around such land and shall maintain in legib...

...Thus, the plaintiffs contended throughout that the Collier Company as the owner of the land had a continuing duty to maintain adequate fencing on the property though the Collier Company neither owned nor had custody or control of any livestock on said property. We hold that is an improper construction of Section 588.11 and is a misunderstanding of the Warren Act. The latter imposes a duty not on land owners but on owners of livestock. They are enjoined to keep their livestock off the public roads whether by fence or wall or simple tether, it matters not. * * * All Section 588.11 does (or rather did at the time it was passed) is to impose a conditional legal duty upon a landowner to maintain legal fences and legal signs around his land if that land is to have the protection of criminal trespass statutes....

...§ 588.15, Fla. Stat. The act defines an "owner" of livestock as any person "owning or having custody of or in charge of livestock." § 588.13(2), Fla. Stat. Confusion has prevailed in this case because the plaintiffs have proceeded upon the theory that Section 588.11, Florida Statutes (Chapter 25357, § 7, Laws of Florida (1949)), which reads as follows: The owner of legally enclosed land shall maintain in reasonable good condition the fence or enclosure around such land and shall maintain in legib...

...Thus, the plaintiffs contended throughout that the Collier Company as the owner of the land had a continuing duty to maintain adequate fencing on the property though the Collier Company neither owned nor had custody or control of any livestock on said property. We hold that is an improper construction of Section 588.11 and a misunderstanding of the Warren Act....

...notices are maintained in a certain way. Sections 588.011(1)-(3), Florida Statutes, describe the legal fence *902 that satisfies requirement (a). Section 588.10, Florida Statutes, describes the signs and posting thereof that satisfy requirement (b). Section 588.11, Florida Statutes, does two things. First, it describes the maintenance necessary to satisfy requirement (c), and second, it provides that substantial compliance with fencing and sign posting requirements (a) and (b) is sufficient to render land legally enclosed land. We hold that Section 588.11, Florida Statutes, imposes no absolute legal duty upon an owner of land to fence his land or to maintain a fence upon his land or suffer adverse legal consequences for failing to erect or maintain a legal fence. All Section 588.11 does (or rather did at the time it was passed) is to impose a conditional legal duty upon a landowner to maintain legal fences and legal signs around his land if that land is to have the protection of criminal trespass statutes....

construed to be the equivalent of a gate. Section 588.011(3)(b), F.S., describes a cattle gap as being

...ledge “regarding ownership of the black cow in question”; that she had no details as to the manner in which Hower-ton willfully or negligently permitted the cow to run at large; and that she did not know in what manner Howerton had violated F.S. § 588.11, F.S.A....

...elessly and negligently permitted certain of his cattle to run at large upon,, or stray upon, the said public road because of his failure to maintain in reasonably good condition a fence for the enclosure of his said cattle, in violation of Sections 588.11 and 588.15, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...good condition, a fence for the enclosure of said cattle, so that said cattle were permitted to escape from his lands, and be at large upon *190 the above said public road in Madison County, Florida, contrary to the provisions of Sections 588.15 and 588.11 of the Florida Statutes [F.S.A.].” The first statutory provision (Section 588.15) thus cited and invoked in the complaint reads as follows: “Every owner of livestock who intentionally, wilfully, carelessly or negligently suffers or permits...

...run at large upon or stray upon the public roads of this state shall be liable in damages for all injury and property damage sustained by any person by reason thereof.” The second statute which the plaintiffs cite and rely upon in their complaint (Section 588.11) provides: “The owner of legally enclosed land shall maintain in reasonable good condition the fence or enclosure around such land and shall maintain in legible condition any and all posted notices as required by §§ 588.09, 588.10,...

its pasture by a "legal fence" as defined by section 588.011, Florida Statutes (1995). Prior to 1949, Florida

definitions [section 588.011(1) and (2)] and had a gate which complied with section 588.011(3)(a). The