Noble v. Yorke
| Decision Date | 01 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 67021,67021 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 196,490 So.2d 29 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 196 Jerry NOBLE, et ux., et al., Petitioners, v. Sue A. YORKE, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James G. Salerno of Pyszka, Kessler, Massey, Catri, Holton and Doubereley, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.
Mark L. Weinstein of Schwartz, Steinhardt, Weiss and Weinstein, North Miami Beach, for respondents.
The following question has been certified as being of great public importance:
Is the doctrine of equitable estoppel available to avoid the exemption from liability created by F.S. 767.04?
Yorke v. Noble, 466 So.2d 349, 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and answer the question in the affirmative.
On the evening of April 11, 1982, Mr. Yorke spoke with Mrs. Noble over the telephone and told her that he and his wife would like to visit her home/business to purchase some "jockey silks." Mrs. Noble told Mr. Yorke that there was a "Beware of Bad Dog" sign on the front door of her home but to ignore it because the dog was secured. Mrs. Noble further instructed that if she did not answer the front door she would be working in another structure behind the main house and that they could get to the rear building by following a path around the house.
When the Yorkes arrived at the Noble's home and received no answer to the doorbell, they proceeded around the house to the rear. As the Yorkes approached the building behind the house, a dog barked and lunged at the gate which the Nobles had left unsecured. This caused the gate to open slightly and as Mrs. Yorke attempted to close the gate, the dog bit her finger.
The Yorkes sued for damages pursuant to section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1981). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Nobles and denied the Yorkes' request for leave to amend to sue Jerry Noble upon a theory of common law liability as a property owner who did not own the offending canine. The trial court's order of summary judgment was based upon that portion of section 767.04 which provides that a property owner who displays an easily readable "Bad Dog" sign in a prominent place on the premises is absolutely immune from liability for any damages resulting from a dog bite.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies to the facts of this case and is available to avoid the exemption from liability created by section 767.04. The district court also held that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's request for leave to amend.
In Florida, the dog-bite statute supersedes the common law and provides the exclusive remedy in dog-bite actions brought by an economic invitee against a business establishment which owns the dog. Belcher Yacht, Inc. v. Stickney, 450 So.2d 1111 (Fla.1984). Section 767.04 imposes absolute liability upon the owner of a dog for any injury caused by the dog regardless of scienter and provides absolute defenses by which a dog owner may escape liability from a dog bite injury inflicted by his dog. Belcher. One of those absolute defenses, and the one at the center of the instant dispute, is that a dog owner may escape liability if an easily readable sign with the words "Bad Dog" is displayed in a prominent place on the premises.
The Nobles argue that the entry of summary judgment in their favor was proper because they fully complied with section 767.04 which relieves a dog owner from liability if an easily readable sign including the words "Bad Dog" is displayed in a prominent place on the premises. The Nobles correctly point out that such a sign was on the premises at the time Mrs. Yorke was bitten. The Yorkes assert that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is a bar to the statutory defense in this case because Mrs. Noble told Mr. Yorke to ignore the sign because the dog was secured. We agree with the Yorkes and hold that the tort immunity of 767.04 does not extend to a dog owner who affirmatively directs a business invitee to ignore the "Bad Dog" sign displayed on the premises.
As noted in the opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied "where the representations of one party reasonably lead another to believe in a certain state of affairs and in reliance on such representations the latter changes his position to his detriment." 466 So.2d at 351 (citations omitted). The doctrine applies in this case because the Yorkes were told to ignore and disregard the "Bad Dog" sign displayed on the Noble property, they relied upon that representation and Mrs. Yorke was injured as a result of that misrepresentation. Further, absent specific statutory provision, there is no rule of law which in general exempts statutory rights and defenses from the operation of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Significantly, the statute neither expressly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schneider v. Kumpf
...this particular condition to a variety of comparable dangers traditionally triggering the duty of due care.”); and Noble v. Yorke, 490 So.2d 29, 31–32 (Fla.1986) (indicating that a victim may sue a non-owner of dog for negligent maintenance of a gate confining the dog).{¶ 65} In Braese v. S......
-
Gentle v. Pine Valley Apartments
...213 N.J.Super. at 120-21, 516 A.2d at 640 (footnote omitted; emphasis added). A comparable rule is recognized in Florida. In Noble v. Yorke, 490 So.2d 29 (Fla.1986), Yorke sued Noble, the apparent owner of a dog that bit her on Noble's premises. Her initial complaint alleged a cause of acti......
-
Major League Baseball v. Morsani
...claims to have been aware the defense was available."). 13. See, e.g., Branca v. City of Miramar, 634 So.2d 604 (Fla.1994); Noble v. Yorke, 490 So.2d 29 (Fla.1986); Miami Gardens, Inc. v. Conway, 102 So.2d 622 (Fla.1958); State ex rel. Watson v. Gray, 48 So.2d 84 (Fla.1950); Steen v. Scott,......
-
Morsani v. Major League Baseball
...by the supreme court since the inception of statehood. See, e.g., Branca v. City of Miramar, 634 So.2d 604 (Fla.1994); Noble v. Yorke, 490 So.2d 29 (Fla.1986); Miami Gardens, Inc. v. Conway, 102 So.2d 622 (Fla.1958); State ex rel. Watson v. Gray, 48 So.2d 84 (Fla.1950); Steen v. Scott, 144 ......
-
Negligence cases
...provides absolute defenses by which a dog owner may escape liability from a dog bite injury inflicted by his dog. Source Noble v. Yorke , 490 So.2d 29, 30 (Fla.1986) NEGLIGENCE CASES 2-73 Negligence Cases §2:150 See also 1. Belcher Yacht, Inc. v. Stickney, 450 So.2d 1111, 1113 (Fla.1984) (“......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...Department of Revenue v. Anderson , 403 So.2d 397, 400 (Fla. 1981), on remand , 405 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). 3. Noble v. Yorke , 490 So.2d 29, 31 (Fla. 1986). §18:120.1.1 Elements — 1st DCA The elements of estoppel are: (1) a representation by the party to be estopped to the party clai......