Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fluffy being wrongly accused

Expand Messages
  • suesarkis@aol.com
    Amy - I have taken the time to carefully review FL s statutes and some case decisions not only for 761.01 but also the various leash laws. From what I can
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 13, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Amy -

      I have taken the time to carefully review FL's statutes and some case
      decisions not only for 761.01 but also the various leash laws. From what I can
      see, the various leash laws address "roaming at-large" rather then "running
      at-large". There is a vast difference between "running" and "roaming" and since
      the laws mention "neighbor's property" and "without their permission" I'm led
      to believe, or so it appears, that there is no requirement for your dog to
      be leashed in your own front lawn or even your neighbor's if they so allow.

      The injuries suffered by Roz were NOT foreseeable by Fluffy's owner, in my
      opinion, since there is no evidence that the owner was psychic and one would
      expect a person walking their dog about the neighborhood on a leash to keep
      them under their direct control in accordance with the statute. I personally
      find that the statutes, as written, actually go against Roz.

      Also, as has been stated by others, FL Statute 761.01 states that the
      liability is created when an injury has been DONE by the dog, not caused by the
      dog. This can only be interpreted one way in the eyes of the law as I see it
      and that would be that the damage must be done directly by the dog. The
      wording is not ambiguous.

      I also find your adding "proximate cause" flawed if it is intended to relate
      to 761.01. If this is a separate cause of action not related to 761.01 I
      think Roz has a hard way to go with that one. Issues of the Plaintiff's
      behavior go to the subsequent elements of establishing a cause of action in FL
      torts since they replaced "contributory negligence" with "comparative
      negligence". Under the former law, if you were 1% liable, you paid 100% of the award.
      Under the comparative, you pay only that percent the jury finds. Further, in
      1992 the FL Supreme Court (Gordon v. State, 608 So. 2d 800) made it loud and
      clear that punitive damages are not intended to compensate a claimant. They
      are awarded solely for the purpose of punishing truly egregious conduct. I
      think the key word here is "egregious".

      I don't agree with your belief; I do believe the system is logical. It is
      juries that I find illogical when it comes to awards for damages but you have
      to pass the first threshold before getting there. I believe there is enough
      "legislative intent" as well as unambiguous language in the statutes to
      absolve Fluffy.



      * * * *


      You then threw a hypothetical at us with -


      Take this set of circumstances:
      Male dog goes out
      female dog in heat goes out of house.
      Male dog runs out in the street to meet female dog.
      Car approaches and there is an accident..
      Who is at fault?





      Although I realize FL has various ordinances about keeping female animals
      secluded when in heat, I cannot intelligently address this since you didn't
      specify what type of accident. However, most likely the owner of the female dog
      in heat would be found liable as that is a specific statute so stated.
      This, however, is an entirely different legal premise.

      Leave Fluffy alone !!

      Sincerely yours,
      Sue
      ____________________________________________________

      Sue Sarkis
      Sarkis Detective Agency
      (est. 1976)

      PI 6564
      1346 Ethel Street
      Glendale, CA 91207-1826
      818-242-2505
      818-246-3001 FAX

      If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English,
      thank a military veteran.

      God Bless America and her allies forever !!


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.