Is the Owner Liable for Your Dog Bite?

Close to it, with conditions. FL § 767.04 makes the owner of any dog that bites a person liable for the damages regardless of the dog's former viciousness or the owner's knowledge of it — there is no "one free bite." The conditions: the person bitten must have been in a public place or lawfully on private property; the person's own negligence, if it was a proximate cause of the bite, reduces the owner's liability by that percentage; and an owner who had prominently displayed an easily readable sign including the words "Bad Dog" is not liable under the statute, except to a child under 6 or where the owner's own negligence caused the injury.

The statute is specific: the defense requires a sign "including the words 'Bad Dog.'" A "Beware of Dog" sign is not the sign the Legislature described, and an owner relying on one is asking a court to read words into the section that are not there. Even a compliant "Bad Dog" sign fails if the owner's negligence proximately caused the bite, and it never applies to a person under 6. The sign is also the owner's burden to prove — that it existed, where it was, and that it was easily readable at the time.

FL § 767.04 applies to a person in a public place or lawfully on private property — on invitation, express or implied, or under a duty imposed by law such as mail delivery or utility work. A trespasser is outside the statute's strict liability. But "lawfully" is broad: an unfenced front walk, a business open to the public, or a long-standing implied welcome puts a person inside it, and the statute says its remedy is cumulative with the common law, so a claim can still be built on the owner's negligence or knowledge of the dog's viciousness.

That claim is under a different section. FL § 767.01(1) makes a dog owner liable for any damage done by the owner's dog to a person — a knockdown, a jump, a scratch, or a chase that ends in a fall or a bicycle crash. It does not require a bite, and it does not carry the "Bad Dog" sign defense. Framing a non-bite injury under the bite statute is the mismatch defense lawyers look for first.

It reduces it, by percentage. FL § 767.04 states that any negligence on the part of the person bitten that is a proximate cause of the biting incident reduces the owner's liability by the percentage the bitten person's negligence contributed. Whether reaching toward a dog, or walking past it, amounts to negligence is an argument the owner has to make and prove. Whether the 2023 amendment to FL § 768.81 — which bars recovery in a negligence action for a plaintiff more than 50% at fault — reaches a statutory dog-bite claim is a question the courts have not settled.

Usually the owner's homeowners or renters insurance, which typically covers liability for injuries the policyholder's dog causes. Some policies exclude certain breeds or dogs with a bite history, and some owners have no coverage at all, in which case the claim is against the owner personally. Notify the carrier early: most policies require prompt notice of a claim.

FL § 767.04 places liability on the owner. A person who was merely keeping, walking or sitting the dog is not the owner, and a claim against them is in ordinary negligence — what they knew about the dog and what care they took. The claim against the owner remains under the statute even though the owner was not present.

Florida shortened the limitations period for negligence actions to two years under § 95.11 for causes of action accruing after March 24, 2023. Which period applies to a strict-liability count under the bite statute in particular is a genuine legal question, and there is no upside to testing it — treat two years from the date of the bite as your working deadline, and shorter if a government entity is involved.