Bozarth v. Barreto

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bozarth v. Barreto

399 So. 2d 370, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19764

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 5, 1981

DocketNo. 80-89

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 399 So. 2d 370 (Bozarth v. Barreto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bozarth v. Barreto, 399 So. 2d 370, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19764 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment entered in favor of the defendants Ronald Barreto and his insurer Travelers Insurance Company [upon a jury verdict rendered in their favor below in an action brought under Section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1979)] is affirmed upon a holding that the trial court correctly denied the plaintiffs Evelyn Bozarth and Ralph Bozarth’s motion for a directed verdict at trial on the issue of liability. The cause was properly one for jury determination on liability as there was, in our view, sufficient evidence in the record for the jury to conclude, as it did, that the plaintiff Evelyn Bozarth’s injuries were not proximately caused by any aggressive or affirmative act directed against said plaintiff by the defendant’s dog, which of necessity, would also defeat the plaintiff Ralph Bozarth’s derivative claim. Tiny’s Liquors, Inc. v. [371]*371Davis, 353 So.2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Smith v. Allison, 332 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment entered in favor of the defendants Ronald Barreto and his insurer Travelers Insurance Company [upon a jury verdict rendered in their favor below in an action brought under Section 767.01, Florida Statutes (1979)] is affirmed upon a holding that the trial court correctly denied the plaintiffs Evelyn Bozarth and Ralph Bozarth’s motion for a directed verdict at trial on the issue of liability. The cause was properly one for jury determination on liability as there was, in our view, sufficient evidence in the record for the jury to conclude, as it did, that the plaintiff Evelyn Bozarth’s injuries were not proximately caused by any aggressive or affirmative act directed against said plaintiff by the defendant’s dog, which of necessity, would also defeat the plaintiff Ralph Bozarth’s derivative claim. Tiny’s Liquors, Inc. v. [371]*371Davis, 353 So.2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Smith v. Allison, 332 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

399 So. 2d 370, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bozarth-v-barreto-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack