Allstate Ins. Co. v. Greenstein, s. 74--162
| Decision Date | 25 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 74--162,74--163,s. 74--162 |
| Citation | 308 So.2d 561 |
| Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants. v. Melvin GREENSTEIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Petersen, McGowan & Feder, Miami, for appellants.
Fromberg, Fromberg & Roth and Jeffrey Michael Cohen, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., HENDRY, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The appellee, Melvin Greenstein, received a favorable jury verdict awarding damages in the amount of $64,862 against the appellants.
The verdict followed a directed verdict by the court on the issue of liability also in favor of the appellee.
Greenstein filed a complaint against the appellants John and Pat Tomasetti and their insurer, Allstate Insurance Company. He alleged in count two of the complaint (upon which the court directed a verdict) that a great dane dog, named 'Pandora' and owned by the Tomasettis, ran into the street in the vicinity of S.W. 105th Street and 60th Street and struck Greenstein's car, causing him to lose control and collide with a power pole.
At trial, Greenstein testified that he was proceeding in a westerly direction on 60th Street when 'Pandora' ran into the street, and he swerved to avoid hitting the animal, causing the accident.
Mrs. Tomasetti through her deposition read at trial by Greenstein's attorney and through live testimony stated that at the time the accident occurred, she, her husband and her son, Dane, were out searching in the neighborhood for 'Pandora' who had escaped from their front yard where he had been chained.
Mrs. Tomasetti witnessed the accident. She testified that she had just pulled her own car off to the north side of 60th Street when she observed Greenstein's vehicle approaching 'very fast' from the rear. Although at the time of the accident (approximately 7:15 P.M.) it was almost dark, Mrs. Tomasetti estimated Greenstein's car to be traveling at 60 miles per hour.
Greenstein testified to the contrary, estimating his speed just prior to the accident at 30 miles per hour.
In directing a verdict for Greenstein, the trial court concluded that under Fla.Stat. § 767.01, F.S.A. and cases interpreting the statute, the Thomasettis, as owners of 'Pandora', were strictly liable for damages done by the dog.
In addition, the court necessarily concluded that the rate of speed of Greenstein's car was not the sole proximate cause of the accident.
On appeal, the appellants argue first that it was error for the court to direct a verdict because the statute did not apply, and because a jury might conclude that Greenstein was the sole proximate cause of the accident.
Secondly, the appellants argue the court erred in not applying the doctrine of comparative negligence enunciated by the Florida Supreme Court in Hoffman v. Jones, Fla.1973, 280 So.2d 431, to both the liability and damage aspects of this case.
For reasons to follow, we hold that no reversible error was committed, and the judgment accordingly is affirmed.
We see little difficulty in upholding the trial court's conclusion that Section 767.01 applies to this case. Appellants' reliance on Rutland v. Biel, Fla.App.1973, 277 So.2d 807, is not justified in the case at bar.
In that decision, the Second District Court of Appeal held that 767.01 is inapplicable where the dog takes no affirmative or aggressive action toward the injured person. While we might agree with the court on the facts involved in the Rutland case, we think it is apparent here that 'Pandora'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parsons v. Culp
...725 (5th Cir. 1946) ). Other courts construed section 767.01 as creating a form of strict liability. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Greenstein , 308 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (affirming trial court's decision not to apply consideration of comparative negligence because "[u]nder the statu......
-
Le Mars Mut. Ins. Co. of Iowa v. Bonnecroy
...of St. Bernard dog held liable when loaded gun in automobile with dog discharged when touched by dog); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Greenstein, 308 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975) (dog ran onto road causing car to swerve and hit power pole; court held dog owner liable because dog took af......
-
Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co.
...was no contact between the animal and the plaintiff. A verdict for the plaintiff was sustained. The court in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Greenstein, 308 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), upheld a summary judgment for the plaintiff on the question of liability where plaintiff had swerved his car t......
-
Donner v. Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.
...of Appeal of this State stating that the doctrine of assumed risk is a valid defense under the statute. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Greenstein, 308 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Hall v. Ricardo, 297 So.2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Issacs v. Powell, 267 So.2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); English ......
-
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: the correct paradigm of strict liability and the problem of individual causation.
...231 N.E.2d at 9-10. (78.) See Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 463 So.2d 1153, 1157 (Fla. 1985); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Greenstein, 308 So.2d 561,562 (Fla. App. 1975) (plaintiff crashed after swerving car to avoid dog runing into street); English v. Seachord, 243 So.2d 193, 194-95 (Fla.......