HomeMy WebLinkAbout1536 ledge of such viciousness. A persai is latir-
fully opal private prq.~erty of such aar~er
within the meaning of this act when he is on
such property in the perfornanoe of any duty
in~.~osed upon him by the laws of this state
or by the laws or postal regulations of the
(fined States, or when he is on such property
upon invitation, expressed or implied, of the
owner thereof ; provided, however, no owner
of any dog shall be liable for any daanages to
any person or his property when suds person
shall misd~ievously or carelessly provoke
or aggravate the dog inflicting such damage;
nor shall any such owner be so liable if at. .
the time of any such injury he had displayed
in a prominent place on his premises a sign
easily readable including the words `Bad Dog.'"
Note that the dog bite statute neither awards nor prohibits punitive
damages. Without researching all of the negligence and Mort statutes, this writer
can never ranember any such statute that specifically provides for "punitive
damages. " Does it not follow that if a dog bite situation falls within the punitive
damage charge, punitive damages would lie? Should not the taw be consistent?
Assure the grandnnther "sicced" the dog on the child and the child was greviously
injured--there should not punitive damages lie? I think so..... Once punitive
damages are allowed, is it not a factual question for the "trier of the facts" to
determine the application of the law; and if applicable, the degree of responsi-
. bility of the grandparent???? Again, I think so.
The t~btion to Strike the Claim for Punitive Daanages is denied.
DRS AMID ORDERID at Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida, this .
14th day of March, 1980.
'i -
i
f~
~
~ ~
G. , CI~IJIT JZIDC~
t
Copies furnished to: s
Michael Jeffries, Esq. ~~s~
John T. Brennan, Esq.
1960. MAR I7 IIl~ ~ 04
s ie~~~~0~i?~'
k; aeroc aRCUi~ cc,a~t
4 RE3l~f YERif1EG_____
~~3Z7 Q,~15~35