Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 767.01 (2025)
Dog owner’s liability for damages to persons, domestic animals, or livestock.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
767.01 Dog owner’s liability for damages to persons, domestic animals, or livestock.—
(1) A dog owner is liable for any damage done by the owner’s dog to a person or to any animal included in the definitions of “domestic animal” and “livestock” as provided by s. 585.01.
(2) If a dog owner has knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities, the owner must securely confine the dog in a proper enclosure as defined in s. 767.11.
History.—RS 2341; ch. 4979, 1901; GS 3142; RGS 4957; CGL 7044; s. 1, ch. 94-339; s. 48, ch. 2024-137; s. 2, ch. 2025-61.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1951–2022 · leading case: Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 463 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1985).
Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 463 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1985). “We disagree. Petitioner, Donnie Jones, a twelve-year-old boy, brought this civil action against Roy Davis, the respondent's insured, seeking damages for injuries sustained when he was struck by a wagon being pulled by Davis' dog.”
Smith v. Allison, 332 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). “Chapter 767 for damages suffered by plaintiff Leo Allison, who lost control of his motorcycle when defendant Smith's dog ran into his path of travel on the roadway.”
Kilpatrick v. Sklar, 548 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1989). “We agree with the district court that the Fireman's Rule, as a common law defense, does not apply to claims under sections 767.01 and 767.04, Florida Statutes (1981).”
Brandeis v. Felcher, 211 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). “The sole question to be determined on this appeal is whether, under Fla. Stat. § 767.01 , F.S.A., liability might be imposed upon the owners of the dogs for the boy's death.”
Rattet v. Dual Sec. Sys., Inc., 373 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). “Rattet's injuries having been sustained as a result of jumping from the fence, the trial judge was correct in determining that liability, if any, may only be imposed under Section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1975). [2] We now consider the propriety of the entry of the summary…”
Jordan v. Brown, 855 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). “, appellees, pursuant to section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1995), appeal an amended final order determining that the jury verdict in their favor was against the manifest weight of the evidence and awarding the Browns a new trial.”
Wallace v. Strassel, 479 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). “Third-party defendant Strassel then filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that appellant was strictly liable for the actions of his dog under section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1983). Guest then moved to amend his complaint to state a cause of action in strict liability…”
Mapoles v. Mapoles, 350 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). “The instant judgment as to liability on the part of Cam Mapoles was entered by the trial court upon the theory that Section 767.01, Florida Statutes, imposed strict liability upon the dog owner under the facts of this case.”
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 408 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). “As Shane ran past Donnie, who was slightly ahead of Shane and the other two boys, some portion of the wagon struck Donnie, resulting in permanent injury to his leg.”
Vandercar v. David, 96 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957). “1906, and still appears, as Section 767.01, F.S.A., as follows: "Owners of dogs shall be liable for any damage done by their dogs to sheep or other domestic animals or livestock, or to persons.”
Deborah Davison v. Rebecca Berg, 243 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). “Davison filed an action against Berg under section 767.01, Florida Statutes (2014), which imposes liability on dog owners for damage their dogs cause to other persons or animals.”
Donner v. Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins., 358 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1978). “§ 767.01, Fla.Stat. (1975), reads as follows: “Owners responsible.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.