Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

The Tennessee State Legislature is considering new rules for dangerous dogs after a pit bull attack led to the death of an elderly man in Memphis. Two dogs mauled mauled a 71 year old man to death in July.

The proposed law in Tennessee would fine owners of dangerous dogs from $100 up to $25,000, depending on the violent background of the dog. The law being contemplated would fine owners for failing to have the required liability insurance as well as letting their dogs loose. The Tennessee legislature is also considering preventing convicted felons from owning certain violent breeds of dogs like pit bulls.

In Florida, the legislature has enacted a law imposing strict liability on dog owners in the event that their dog attacks someone. There is no requirement, however, that the owners have insurance for the damages that their dogs cause. Frequently, this leaves victims of an attack unable to recoup even their medical bills.

Currently in Florida, there is a patchwork of different laws which vary from county to county and city to city regarding the legal responsibility and insurance requirements for "dangerous" dogs. These laws vary on what types of dogs are covered (i.e., pit bulls, staffordshire terriers) and how much, if any, insurance is required. Lastly, the penalties for non-compliance are different.

There is no reason for owners of dangerous dogs like pit bulls to be able to escape responsibility for the injuries that their dogs cause, depending upon which Florida city they live in. If the Florida legislature wants to put politics aside, this should be a relatively simple issue to address.

Continue reading "Florida Legislature should enact new laws for dangerous dogs" »

A New York judge has ruled that a four year old girl might have been too young for grade school, but the girl was old enough to be sued over a bicycle accident that injured a bystander.

The judge refused to dismiss negligence claims against the girl and her mother and who are being sued by the estate of a woman who alleges she was seriously injured when hit by the girl's bicycle while she was racing down a sidewalk. The woman later died.

The court ruled that although the girl was three months shy of five years of age, there was no evidence a child of her age couldn't appreciate "the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman."

Of course, a young girl would probably not have sufficient assets to pay off any judgment which might ultimately be rendered against her, but her parents might. Her parents may also have insurance which provides liability coverage to the victim's estate for the parents' negligence. This raises the legal issue of when can a parent be held legally responsible for the negligence of their young child.

In Florida, the long-standing rule is that "a parent is not liable for the tort of his minor child because of the mere fact of paternity." Seabrook v. Taylor, 199 So.2d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967) One of the recognized exceptions to this rule is where the parent entrusts the "child with an instrumentality which, because of the lack of age, judgment, or experience of the child, may become a source of danger to others." Gissen v. Goodwill, 80 So.2d 701 (Fla.1955).

Here, the judgment of the girl's parents in allowing her to race her bicycle on a city street can certainly be called into question. Even if the girl, without her parents' permission, took it upon herself to race her bicycle down the sidewalk, her parents had the duty to supervise her behavior to make sure that it was not a danger to others.

Continue reading "Girl, 4 years old, sued in bicycle crash" »