Christie v. Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc., 71--857
| Decision Date | 28 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--857,71--857 |
| Citation | 287 So.2d 359 |
| Parties | Ruben B. CHRISTIE, Appellant, v. ANCHORAGE YACHT HAVEN, INC., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George A. Shahood and A. J. Ryan, Jr., Dania, for appellant.
Frank E. Maloney, Jr., Fleming O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
Appellant was thrown from his bicycle while on the private property of another when attacked by a large German sheperd dog. He sought damages from appellees on the basis of (1) alleged ownership of the dog, and (2) alleged ownership of the premises upon which the attack occurred. At trial, the court directed a verdict for the defendants at the close of the plaintiff's case. He appeals from the judgment entered thereon.
Plaintiff had ridden his bicycle from his place of residence to a place of business known as Nutmeg Yacht Haven, adjacent to State Road 84 in Ft. Lauderdale. In returning home, he took a short cut through adjacent property which he alleged (and which the evidence tended to prove) was owned by appellee-Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc., a corporation. Appellees-Compere Loveless and Marcella M. Loveless were the sole stockholders of this corporation. As soon as appellant rode his bicycle onto the property, a German sheperd police dog lunged at him, causing him to fall from the bicycle and to sustain serious personal injury. The dog was actually the property of one Gene Wallace who, until his death approximately one month prior thereto, had been an employee of Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc., and had occupied a trailer situated upon the property. His widow, although not an employee, had been permitted to remain temporarily in the trailer until she could get her deceased husband's affairs in order, and find another place for herself. Mr. Loveless, as managing officer of Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc., was aware that the dog had been on the premises for over a year, and although he described the dog as gentle, an employee testified that the animal was vicious.
Appellant first contends that under F.S. Section 767.01, F.S.A., 1 whereby the owner of a dog is liable for any damage done to persons, 'owner' should be defined or construed broadly so as to include not only the actual owner, but the possessor, keeper or custodian of the animal. This view is not without supporting authority, 2 but we need not meet nor decide that issue in this case. The evidence shows without dispute that none of the appellees owned the dog, nor were any of them the keeper, custodian or possessor of the dog. Thus, there was no basis for imposing liability upon any of the appellees by virtue of F.S. Section 767.01, F.S.A., and the court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of appellees on this count of the complaint.
Appellant also contends that appellees, as owners of the premises, negligently violated the duty they owed appellant as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. Cordasco
...control, or care for it as dog owners in general are accustomed to do. [Id. at 149 (emphasis supplied).] Christie v. Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc., 287 So.2d 359 (Fla.Ct.App.1973), and Hampton v. Hammons, 743 P.2d 1053 (Okl.1987), are equally inapplicable and unpersuasive. As in Verrett, supr......
-
McCullough v. Bozarth
...Florida courts have on several occasions considered the issue of the landlord's liability in such cases. In Christie v. Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc., 287 So.2d 359 (Fla.App.1973), the plaintiff was thrown from his bicycle when attacked by a large German shepherd, which was kept on the premis......
-
Vasques By and Through Rocha v. Lopez
...Ward, 504 So.2d at 528; Robinson v. Espinosa, 502 So.2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Anderson, 468 So.2d at 291; Christie v. Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc., 287 So.2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). In Christie, this court held that it was error to direct a verdict for a property owner where there was evi......
-
Kilpatrick v. Sklar, 86-556
...Flick v. Malino, 356 So.2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Smith v. Allison, 332 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Christie v. Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc., 287 So.2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Furthermore, because Dr. Ferrer is not within the purview of Chapter 767, the fireman's rule applies and preclu......