Florida Statute 767.1 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 767
DAMAGE BY DOGS; DANGEROUS DOGS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 767.01

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.

F.S. 767.01 on Google Scholar

F.S. 767.01 on CourtListener

Amendments to 767.01

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 767.01

Total Results: 42

Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co.

463 So. 2d 1153, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 159, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3412

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 1985 | Docket: 448986

Cited 58 times | Published

Const. The issue concerns the applicability of section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides that

Sweet v. Josephson

173 So. 2d 444

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 1965 | Docket: 469140

Cited 17 times | Published

25109 [Sec. 767.04] repealed and superseded Section 767.01, F.S.A., and is now the governing law." We

Vandercar v. David

96 So. 2d 227, 66 A.L.R. 2d 912

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 22, 1957 | Docket: 1284234

Cited 17 times | Published

Section 3142, Gen.St. 1906, and still appears, as Section 767.01, F.S.A., as follows: "Owners of dogs shall

Donner v. ARKWRIGHT-BOSTON MANUFACTURERS MUT. INS.

358 So. 2d 21

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 6, 1978 | Docket: 1311875

Cited 16 times | Published

228. The court then went on to distinguish Section 767.01 from Section 767.04, noting that the latter

Kilpatrick v. Sklar

548 So. 2d 215, 1989 WL 84104

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 27, 1989 | Docket: 1699362

Cited 14 times | Published

owner regarding a claim for injuries under section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1981), and as a defense

English v. Seachord

243 So. 2d 193

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 27, 1971 | Docket: 539903

Cited 13 times | Published

attack by a dog is within the contemplation of Section 767.01 of the statute, and under that section knowledge

Brandeis v. Felcher

211 So. 2d 606

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 11, 1968 | Docket: 469142

Cited 13 times | Published

determined on this appeal is whether, under Fla. Stat. § 767.01, F.S.A., liability might be imposed upon the owners

Wendland v. Akers

356 So. 2d 368

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 1978 | Docket: 187786

Cited 11 times | Published

(Fla. 1952) it was said to impliedly repeal Section 767.01, Florida Statutes.[3] Later, in Sweet v. Josephson

Selby v. Bullock

287 So. 2d 18

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 31, 1973 | Docket: 1652949

Cited 10 times | Published

the subject matter of this suit. "3 ... Florida Statute 767.01 provides as follows: "... . Owners of dogs

Knapp v. Ball

175 So. 2d 808

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 8, 1965 | Docket: 1280869

Cited 10 times | Published

plaintiff, without the need to show scienter. Section 767.01, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. provides: "Owners of dogs

Allstate Insurance Company v. Greenstein

308 So. 2d 561, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14533

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 25, 1975 | Docket: 1672987

Cited 9 times | Published

the trial court concluded that under Fla. Stat. § 767.01, F.S.A. and cases interpreting the statute, the

Christie v. Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc.

287 So. 2d 359, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6188

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 1973 | Docket: 1170930

Cited 9 times | Published

vicious. Appellant first contends that under F.S. Section 767.01, F.S.A.,[1] whereby the owner of a dog is liable

Rutland v. Biel

277 So. 2d 807

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 11, 1973 | Docket: 1439476

Cited 9 times | Published

over the dog, and fell flat on her back. F.S. Section 767.01 F.S.A. provides: "Owners of dogs shall be liable

Romfh v. Berman

56 So. 2d 127, 1951 Fla. LEXIS 1008

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 1951 | Docket: 1355327

Cited 9 times | Published

4979, Acts of 1901, and subsequent acts, now Section 767.01, F.S.A. which provides that "owners of dogs

George v. Mann

622 So. 2d 151, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1758

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 1993 | Docket: 1528947

Cited 8 times | Published

strictly liable for her damages pursuant to section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1989). The Manns denied

Seachord v. English

259 So. 2d 136

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 1972 | Docket: 1516902

Cited 8 times | Published

weeks earlier. He brought an action under F.S. Section 767.01, F.S.A.[1] to recover damages for his injury

Miller v. Burns (In Re Burns)

395 B.R. 756, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 4002, 2008 WL 4542894

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 8, 2008 | Docket: 1437510

Cited 7 times | Published

acts in an affirmative and aggressive manner, Section 767.01 becomes "a strict liability statute which has

Mapoles v. Mapoles

350 So. 2d 1137

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 24, 1977 | Docket: 1757691

Cited 7 times | Published

entered by the trial court upon the theory that Section 767.01, Florida Statutes, imposed strict liability

Wallace v. Strassel

479 So. 2d 231, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2667

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 4, 1985 | Docket: 463575

Cited 6 times | Published

strictly liable for the actions of his dog under section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1983). Guest then moved

Smith v. Allison

332 So. 2d 631

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 1976 | Docket: 1691875

Cited 6 times | Published

affirmance on several cases interpreting Fla. Stat. § 767.01, the "Damage [Done] by Dogs" statute, which hold

Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones

408 So. 2d 769

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 1982 | Docket: 2513137

Cited 4 times | Published

ultimately ensued. The complaint was predicated on Section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides: "Owners

Rosenfelt v. Hall

387 So. 2d 544

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 1980 | Docket: 1355399

Cited 4 times | Published

plaintiff's claim of injury by a dog pursuant to section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1977).[1] We reverse. The

Rattet v. DUAL SEC. SYSTEMS, INC.

373 So. 2d 948

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 7, 1979 | Docket: 1772868

Cited 4 times | Published

Security Systems and alleged liability pursuant to Section 767.01 and 767.04, Florida Statutes (1975) and common

Josephson v. Sweet

173 So. 2d 463

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 9, 1964 | Docket: 1276599

Cited 4 times | Published

resolve the dispute. In 1881 the legislature adopted § 767.01 Fla. Stat., F.S.A. which provided: "Owners of

Cohen v. Wall

576 So. 2d 945, 1991 WL 41969

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 1991 | Docket: 1242926

Cited 3 times | Published

alleged that the Cohens were liable pursuant to section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1987), for injuries sustained

Staniszeski v. Walker

550 So. 2d 19, 1989 WL 80710

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 1989 | Docket: 1370894

Cited 3 times | Published

is applicable to an action filed pursuant to section 767.01. Rattet v. Dual Sec. Sys., Inc., 373 So.2d

Hall v. Ricardo

297 So. 2d 849

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 1974 | Docket: 451119

Cited 2 times | Published

not be raised as a defense under the statutes (§ 767.01 and § 767.04, the latter confined by its terms

Trammell v. Thomason

559 F. Supp. 2d 1281, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44210, 2008 WL 2338085

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 3, 2008 | Docket: 1819746

Cited 1 times | Published

Counts I and II against the City Fla. Stat. § 767.01 (Strict Liability) and § 767.04 (Strict Liability)

Murphy v. Sarasota Ostrich Farm/Ranch, Inc.

875 So. 2d 767, 2004 WL 1358998

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 18, 2004 | Docket: 1684001

Cited 1 times | Published

asserted a claim against Shook and Murphy under section 767.01, Florida Statutes (2000), for liability as

Jordan v. Brown

855 So. 2d 231, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 14560, 2003 WL 22213529

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 26, 2003 | Docket: 64825250

Cited 1 times | Published

John E. Brown, Jr., appellees, pursuant to section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1995), appeal an amended

STEVEN RAMOS v. PATRICIA BASTOS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 2022 | Docket: 63401302

Published

damages suffered. They also claimed that under section 767.01, the owner of a dog is strictly liable for

Richard Fannin v. Ace Hunter

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 2021 | Docket: 60414526

Published

THOMAS, J. Appellee sought damages under section 767.01, Florida Statutes (2017), alleging Appellant’s

DAVID PARSONS AND MARLA PARSONS v. PATRICIA CULP

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 17, 2021 | Docket: 60392387

Published

filed a claim against the Parsons premised on section 767.01, Florida Statutes (2016), a statute that, in

Deborah Davison v. Rebecca Berg

243 So. 3d 489

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 2018 | Docket: 6342217

Published

Davison filed an action against Berg under section 767.01, Florida Statutes (2014), which imposes liability

Huie v. Wipperfurth

632 So. 2d 1109, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1682, 1994 WL 63320

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 1994 | Docket: 64746740

Published

severe, potential consequences inherent in [section 767.01],4 there is a clear burden on the plaintiff

Kilpatrick v. Sklar

497 So. 2d 1289, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2352, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10530

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1986 | Docket: 64623222

Published

for damages, predicating their liability on section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1981),1 and common law.

Associated Home Health Agency, Inc. v. Lore

484 So. 2d 1389, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 740, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7012

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 1986 | Docket: 64618044

Published

(1983). Appellants first contend that under section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1983), the owner of a dog

Stickney v. Belcher Yacht, Inc.

424 So. 2d 962, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18456

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 11, 1983 | Docket: 64594535

Published

section 767.04 (dog bite statute) superseded section 767.01 (applicable statute where dog causes damage

Bozarth v. Barreto

399 So. 2d 370, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19764

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 5, 1981 | Docket: 64583000

Published

their favor below in an action brought under Section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1979)] is affirmed upon

Donner v. Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance

358 So. 2d 21, 1978 Fla. LEXIS 4771

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 6, 1978 | Docket: 64564211

Published

228. The court then went on to distinguish Section 767.01 from Section 767.04, noting that the latter

Mapoles v. Mapoles ex rel. Mapoles

332 So. 2d 373, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15144

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 28, 1976 | Docket: 64553777

Published

determine whether, under the facts of this case, Section 767.01, Florida Statutes, makes Cam absolutely liable

Scott v. Gordon

321 So. 2d 619, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15575

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 1975 | Docket: 64550330

Published

ancient “damage [done] by dogs” statute, Fla.Stat. § 767.01. We feel that the trial judge was premature in