Cases from cite.case.law:

G. STRICKLAND, v. PINELLAS COUNTY,, 261 So. 3d 700 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . The letter set forth sections 767.01, 767.13(2), and 784.05(1), Florida Statutes (2015), which apply . . .

DAVISON, v. BERG,, 243 So. 3d 489 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Davison filed an action against Berg under section 767.01, Florida Statutes (2014), which imposes liability . . . I. " Section 767.01 is a strict liability statute which has consistently been construed to virtually . . . The only total defense to liability available in a section 767.01 action is for a dog owner to have " . . . Park Rules signs were sufficiently equivalent to "Bad Dog" signs to preclude liability under section 767.01 . . . Similarly, section 767.01 was amended in 1994 to clarify which "domestic animals" and "livestock" dog . . .

UNITED STATES v. STIFF,, 407 F. App'x 896 (6th Cir. 2011)

. . . determined that, at the time of their arrest, Stiff and his co-defendants possessed 13.78 grams of heroin, 767.01 . . .

In BURNS, L. v., 395 B.R. 756 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . Supreme Court of Florida explained that where a dog acts in an affirmative and aggressive manner, Section 767.01 . . .

TRAMMELL, v. A. THOMASON,, 559 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . . § 767.01 (Strict Liability) and § 767.04 (Strict Liability) (Dkt. 46) (“Trammell’s Motion”); 2. . . . Sections 767.01 and 767.04. (Dkt. 46 at p. 1). . . . In particular, Section 767.01 reads as follows, “Owners of dogs shall be liable for any damage done by . . . Section 767.04 makes dog owners strictly liable to any person bitten by their dog and Section 767.01 . . . The legislative intent behind Sections 767.01 and 767.04 makes clear that the strict liability statutes . . .

MURPHY, Sr. v. SARASOTA OSTRICH FARM RANCH, INC. v., 875 So. 2d 767 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . The Ostrich Farm asserted a claim against Shook and Murphy under section 767.01, Florida Statutes (2000 . . .

JORDAN v. BROWN E. Jr., 855 So. 2d 231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Brown, Jr., appellees, pursuant to section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1995), appeal an amended final order . . . The Browns filed an action against the Jordans seeking damages for statutory liability under section 767.01 . . . Brown to fall, admitted liability under section 767.01, but denied that she suffered any injury. . . .

TURNER, v. UNITED STATES, 181 F. Supp. 2d 700 (E.D. Mich. 2001)

. . . ATF agent and supported by a laboratory report, seized from the residence was: 13.78 grams of heroin; 767.01 . . . The defendant is being held responsible for 13.78 grams of heroin; 767.01 grams of cocaine base; and . . .

KRENZ- BUCHANAN KRENZ, a v. E. SHALALA,, 884 F. Supp. 324 (W.D. Wis. 1995)

. . . . § 767.01 to grant the circuit courts jurisdiction to hear posthumous paternity actions and created . . . The legislature amended § 767.01, entitled “Jurisdiction,” to add to the provision that an action under . . .

A. HUIE, v. WIPPERFURTH, 632 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . supreme court held that the common-law Fireman’s Rule was not a defense to actions brought under sections 767.01 . . . 1976), the court stated that, “[b]ecause of the severe, potential consequences inherent in [section 767.01 . . . Section 767.01 provides, as it did in 1981, that: Owners of dogs shall be liable for any damage done . . . by their dogs to sheep or other domestic animals or livestock, or to persons. § 767.01, Fla.Stat. (1993 . . .

GEORGE, v. MANN,, 622 So. 2d 151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . were the owners of the offending dog and were thus strictly liable for her damages pursuant to section 767.01 . . . See generally §§ 767.01 and 767.04, Fla.Stat. (1989) and the plethora of cases whelped by these statutes . . .

HULLUM, WATSON, v. SULLIVAN,, 762 F. Supp. 1324 (N.D. Ill. 1991)

. . . 767” by definition involves all of the relevant trappings of chapter 767, one of those being section 767.01 . . . Dewan contends otherwise, pointing to Section 767.01(3) (emphasis added): An action under s. 767.45 may . . . But that is not really what Sections 767.01 and 767.45 speak to. . . . Wis.1987), gave those two statutory provisions a far more limited and quite literal reading: Section 767.01 . . . Having done so, N.L.B. went on to hold that Section 895.01 of the Wisconsin Statutes (and not Sections 767.01 . . .

B. COHEN v. WALL, 576 So. 2d 945 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . The complaint alleged that the Cohens were liable pursuant to section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1987) . . . stumbled backwards falling over unattended bicycles and that the Cohens were liable pursuant to section 767.01 . . . Wall in order to establish liability under section 767.01. Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. . . .

BENNEMON, WILLIAMS, v. W. SULLIVAN,, 914 F.2d 987 (7th Cir. 1990)

. . . . §§ 767.01(3), 767.45; Schaefer v. Heckler, supra, 792 F.2d at 83. . . .

KILPATRICK, v. SKLAR,, 548 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1989)

. . . of the Fireman’s Rule both as a defense for a dog owner regarding a claim for injuries under section 767.01 . . . Ferrer on two counts: first, under section 767.01, asserting the statute renders dog owners strictly . . . The district court, in considering the claim under section 767.01, held the defenses available in section . . . 767.04 are also applicable to causes of action accruing under 767.01. . . . We also agree that those defenses apply to a claim under section 767.01. See Rattet v. . . . majority that the Fireman’s Rule, however defined, is not a defense to actions brought under sections 767.01 . . .

S. STANISZESKI v. WALKER, 550 So. 2d 19 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Appellants filed a complaint against ap-pellees pursuant to sections 767.01 and 767.04, Florida Statutes . . . The pertinent parts of these statutes are as follows: 767.01 Dog owner's liability for damages to persons . . . person shall mischievously or carelessly provoke or aggravate the dog inflicting such damage.... §§ 767.01 . . . This defense, found in section 767.04, is applicable to an action filed pursuant to section 767.01. . . .

KILPATRICK, v. SKLAR, a k a Dr., 497 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . He sued appellees for damages, predicating their liability on section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1981) . . . that the trial court erred as a matter of law in entering an adverse summary judgment because section 767.01 . . . 767 renders dog owners strictly liable for damages or injuries to persons caused by their dogs. §§ 767.01 . . . defenses available in section 767.04 are also applicable to causes of action accruing under section 767.01 . . . Section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1981), provides: Owners responsible. — Owners of dogs shall be liable . . .

A. SCHAEFER, M. SCHAEFER, v. HECKLER,, 792 F.2d 81 (7th Cir. 1986)

. . . . §§ 767.01(3), 767.45 (West 1981 and 1985 Supp.). . . .

ASSOCIATED HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC. v. LORE, 484 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Appellants first contend that under section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1983), the owner of a dog is strictly . . . statutory defenses of section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1983), which apply to an action under section 767.01 . . .

A. WALLACE, v. STRASSEL, A., 479 So. 2d 231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . summary judgment, alleging that appellant was strictly liable for the actions of his dog under section 767.01 . . . The court found that the owner of the dog was strictly liable under section 767.01, stating: Section . . . 767.01 is a strict liability statute which has consistently been construed to virtually make an owner . . . As to the quote in Jones that section 767.01 “virtually make[s] an owner the insurer of a dog’s conduct . . . Section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1983), states: 767.01 Owners responsible Owners of dogs shall be liable . . .

JONES, v. UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 463 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1985)

. . . The issue concerns the applicability of section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides that . . . The suit filed by petitioner was predicated on section 767.01, which provides: “Owners of dogs shall . . . In reversing and holding that section 767.01 did not apply under the facts of this case, the district . . . The court expressly held that “[statutory liability pursuant to section 767.01 should be imposed upon . . . The Mapoles court noted that section 767.01 “virtually makes an owner the insurer of the dog’s conduct . . . district court that it was the intent of the legislature that “[statutory liability pursuant to section 767.01 . . .

J. STICKNEY, Jr. v. BELCHER YACHT, INC., 424 So. 2d 962 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . mere obiter dictum, the Romfh court held that section 767.04 (dog bite statute) superseded section 767.01 . . . The Vandercar court held, without addressing the question whether section 767.04 supersedes sectiop 767.01 . . . and expressly receded from the Romfh obiter dictum; it held that section 767.04 supersedes section 767.01 . . . issues as to assumption of risk and contributory negligence in an action brought pursuant to section 767.01 . . .

UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. JONES, a G. d b a, 408 So. 2d 769 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . The complaint was predicated on Section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides: “Owners of dogs . . . So.2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 342 (Fla.1979), traced the history of section 767.01 . . . Although the validity of Section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1975), cannot now be questioned because of . . . Consequently, appellant argues, section 767.01 should be construed to render dog owners liable only for . . . We believe the Mapoles decision extends the liability under section 767.01 far beyond that contemplated . . .

BOZARTH v. BARRETO,, 399 So. 2d 370 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Insurance Company [upon a jury verdict rendered in their favor below in an action brought under Section 767.01 . . .

ROSENFELT, s v. S. HALL,, 387 So. 2d 544 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . a jury verdict finding no liability on the plaintiff’s claim of injury by a dog pursuant to section 767.01 . . . for any damage done by their dogs to sheep or other domestic animals or livestock, or to persons. § 767.01 . . . 767.04, which concerns dog bites, are also applicable to other damages caused by a dog under section 767.01 . . .

E. RATTET, v. DUAL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., 373 So. 2d 948 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . present lawsuit for damages against Dual Security Systems and alleged liability pursuant to Section 767.01 . . . consider the propriety of the entry of the summary judgment for Dual Security Systems under Section 767.01 . . . Under the statutory liability created by Section 767.01 and 767.04, the owner of a dog is cast in the . . . Sections 767.01 and 767.04 having made an owner the insurer against damage done by his dog, we conclude . . . , and (2) permitting a plaintiff to recover damages under Section 767.01 despite the fact that he or . . .

DONNER, v. ARKWRIGHT- BOSTON MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a B. R. F., 358 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1978)

. . . Pursuant to Sections 767.01 and 767.04, Florida Statutes (1975), petitioner sought damages from respondents . . . The court then went on to distinguish Section 767.01 from Section 767.04, noting that the latter by its . . . Berman, 56 So.2d 127 (Fla.1951), it did so only as to dog bite damage leaving Section 767.01 in effect . . . J., dissents. . § 767.01, Fla.Stat. (1975), reads as follows: “Owners responsible. — Owners of dogs shall . . . 2341 (1892) was included as Sec. 7044 of Compiled General Laws, 1927, and was reenacted in 1941 as § 767.01 . . .

Dr. WENDLAND v. AKERS N. D., 356 So. 2d 368 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Berman, 56 So.2d 127 (Fla.1952) it was said to impliedly repeal Section 767.01, Florida Statutes. . . . In that case the Court said; “In sum, the first statute [Section 767.01] fixes liability on the owner . . . Hence, it is unnecessary to discuss Section 767.01, supra, and the numerous cases involving damages occasioned . . . from depredations of dogs on live stock and crops, as was the purpose of the then existing statute, 767.01 . . . Although the validity of Section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1975), cannot now be questioned because of . . .

MAPOLES v. MAPOLES, III, Jr., 350 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . to liability on the part of Cam Mapoles was entered by the trial court upon the theory that Section 767.01 . . . Section 767.01, Florida Statutes, provides, inter alia: “ . . . . . . for the purpose of considering any motions which might be made to raise the applicability of Section 767.01 . . .

MAPOLES v. MAPOLES, III, Jr., 332 So. 2d 373 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . only, both parties to this appeal urge us to determine whether, under the facts of this case, Section 767.01 . . . for the purpose of considering any motions which might be made to raise the applicability of Section 767.01 . . .

K. SMITH v. J. ALLISON,, 332 So. 2d 631 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . . § 767.01, the “Damage [Done] by Dogs” statute, which hold that a dogowner has an absolute liability . . . Stat. § 767.01 to impose an absolute liability in every case where the actions of the dog are a factor . . . of liability in favor of the plaintiff, held: “Appellant next contends, and we so hold, that F.S. § 767.01 . . . In view of F.S. §§ 767.01 and 767.04, F.S.A. making an owner of a dog virtually an in-insurer of the . . . [Emphasis added] Accordingly, we hold that the absolute liability imposed by Fla.Stat. § 767.01 is inapplicable . . . . § 767.01) has been held to make dog owners virtually insurers with regard to injuries caused by a dog . . .

L. SCOTT v. L. GORDON J., 321 So. 2d 619 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . . § 767.01. . . .

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. GREENSTEIN,, 308 So. 2d 561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . . § 767.01, F.S.A. and cases interpreting the statute, the Tomasettis, as owners of “Pandora”, were strictly . . . We see little difficulty in upholding the trial court’s conclusion that Section 767.01 applies to this . . . In that decision, the Second District Court of Appeal held that 767.01 is inapplicable where the dog . . . Under the statutory liability created by Section 767.01, the owner of a dog is cast virtually in the . . .

HALL v. RICARDO, a By, 297 So. 2d 849 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . For example, though contributory- negligence may not be raised as a defense under the statutes (§ 767.01 . . .

B. CHRISTIE, v. ANCHORAGE YACHT HAVEN, INC., 287 So. 2d 359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . Section 767.01, F.S.A., whereby the owner of a dog is liable for any damage done to persons, “owner” . . . Section 767.01, F.S.A., and the court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of appellees on this . . . WALDEN and DOWNEY, JJ., concur. . “767.01 Owners responsible. — Owners of dogs shall be liable for any . . .

SELBY M. v. BULLOCK, Jr., 287 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1973)

. . . Florida Statute 767.01 provides as follows: “ . . . .

R. E. RUTLAND, Jr. v. E. BIEL,, 277 So. 2d 807 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . Section 767.01 F.S.A. provides: “Owners of dogs shall be liable for any damage done by their dogs to . . . While liability of the dog owner imposed by F.S. § 767.01 F.S.A. has been held to be an absolute liability . . . Appellant next contends, and we so hold, that F.S. § 767.01 F.S.A. is not applicable to a situation where . . .

STOUT A. v. J. KEHLENBACK, 265 So. 2d 514 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . Sections 767.01-767.04, F.S.A.; Reid v. Nelson (Sth Cir. 1946) 154 F.2d 724. RAWLS, Acting C. . . .

SEACHORD, v. R. ENGLISH,, 259 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1972)

. . . Section 767.01, F.S.A. to recover damages for his injury from the defendant. . . . Section 767.01, F.S.A. Knapp v. Ball, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 808. In Vandercar v. . . . Section 767.01, F.S.A. It did not purport to construe F.S. . . . Section 767.01, F.S.A. or rule out the defense of contributory negligence thereunder. . . . Section 767.01, F.S.A. . . .

R. ENGLISH, v. SEACHORD,, 243 So. 2d 193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

. . . Liability for non-bite damages suffered in an attack by a dog is within the contemplation of Section 767.01 . . . In view of F.S. §§ 767.01 and 767.04, F.S.A. making an owner of a dog virtually an insurer of the dog . . . F.S. § 767.01, F.S.A. . . .

BRANDEIS v. FELCHER, 211 So. 2d 606 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

. . . . § 767.01, F.S.A., liability might be imposed upon the owners of the dogs for the boy’s death. . . . Fla.Stat. § 767.01, F.S.A. provides as follows: “Owners responsible. — Owners of dogs shall be liable . . . to the end result was sufficient for a jury to consider the question of liability under Fla.Stat. § 767.01 . . . , that non-bite damages suffered in an attack by a dog were within the contemplation of Fla.Stat. § 767.01 . . . plaintiffs proceed in the instant case upon the theory of absolute liability enunciated in Fla.Stat. § 767.01 . . .

COMBS v. ROSENDAHL, 29 Fla. Supp. 131 (St. Lucie Cty. Small Cl. Ct. 1966)

. . . Florida Statute 767.01 states that owners' of dogs shall be liable for any damage done by their dogs . . . Court of Appeal, 175 So.2d 808, the circuit court of Dade County decided that under Florida Statute 767.01 . . .

KNAPP, v. L. BALL, a, 175 So. 2d 808 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)

. . . Section 767.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. provides: “Owners of dogs shall be liable for any damage done by their . . . Liability of the owner of a dog for such injuries under § 767.01 is based on an obligation as an insurer . . . David, supra, wherein this court said: “ * * * But-the fact that liability is imposed by statute [767.01 . . .

SWEET, v. JOSEPHSON,, 173 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1965)

. . . summary judgment in favor of the defendant, petitioner, as he entertained the view that since Sec. 767.01 . . . The earlier one, Sec. 767.01, enacted in 1901, simply provided that “owners of dogs shall be liable for . . . escaped that as to injury to persons by dogs Chapter 25109 [Sec. 767.04] repealed and superseded Section 767.01 . . . ” We do not discover any of these features in Sec. 767.04 which would justify our holding that Sec. 767.01 . . .

JOSEPHSON, v. SWEET,, 173 So. 2d 463 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

. . . In 1881 the legislature adopted § 767.01 Fla.Stat, F.S.A. which provided: “Owners of dogs shall be liable . . . appeal, is what effect, if any, did the subsequent legislation (§ 767.04) have on the prior statute (§ 767.01 . . . It is obvious from the careful reading of the two sections that § 767.01 was superseded by § 767.04 only . . . This section is to be read in connection with 767.01 as both of these Statutes are in effect.” 102 So . . . This result obtains because this case is controlled by § 767.01 in that it is a dog injury case not a . . .

BALL v. KNAPP, 22 Fla. Supp. 194 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1964)

. . . severe and serious injuries and damages” and expressly alleging that the action is brought under section 767.01 . . . This section 767.01 was expressly held in Romfh v. Berman (Fla. S. . . . Berman, supra, because there we said that 767.04 superseded and repealed 767.01 and that said 767.04 . . . Because the Romfh holding that section 767.01 was superseded by 767.04 dealt exclusively with the dog . . . this may still be recognized as the governing law so far as dog bite cases are concerned, and section 767.01 . . .

L. KNIGHT, H. E. E. v. BURGHDUFF, 102 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1958)

. . . This section is to be read in connection with 767.01 as both of these Statutes are in effect.” . . . Berman, supra, because there we said that 767.04 superseded and repealed 767.01 and that said 767.04 . . .

A. VANDERCAR, v. DAVID,, 96 So. 2d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1957)

. . . The language was changed, as shown by Section 3142, Gen.St.1906, and still appears, as Section 767.01 . . . that the Supreme Court’s ruling above quoted should be considered as holding that it repeals Section 767.01 . . . only as to dog bite damage, leaving Section 767.01 in effect for other injury by dogs; and that under . . . Section 767.01 the liability imposed is absolute and precludes the use of the defenses of contributory . . . Section 767.01 eliminated scienter as a necessary element for liability. Ferguson v. . . .

REID v. NELSON, 154 F.2d 724 (5th Cir. 1946)

. . . Section 767.01 of Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., malees the owner of a dog liable for any damage which . . . for any damage done by their dogs to sheep or other domestic animals or livestock, or to persons.” § 767.01 . . .

SPRING VALLEY WATER CO. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 165 F. 657 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1904)

. . . invested in the water system exceeds that which was shown to be invested in the former case by $680,-767.01 . . .