Martinez v. Schiffman

402 So. 2d 605, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21018
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 1, 1981·No. No. 80-1682·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge correctly held that the second amended complaint failed to state a cause of action against the appellee landlord for injuries caused when a dog owned by his tenants bit the minor plaintiff while he was on the leased premises. Miller v. Sinclair Refining Co., 268 F.2d 114 (5th Cir. 1959); Simms v. Kennedy, 74 Fla. 411, 76 So. 739 (1917); Collins v. Otto, 149 Colo. 489, 369 P.2d 564 (1962); cases collected, Annot., Landlord’s Liability for Tenant’s Vicious Pet, 81 A.L.R.3d 638, 641-43 (1977). Compare, Uccello v. Laudenslayer, 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 118 Cal.Rptr. 741 (1975), where the landlord’s liability was based on the lessor's retention of control over the leased premises, a factor which was not alleged in this case.

Affirmed.

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

Martinez v. Schiffman, 402 So. 2d 605, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21018 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

402 So. 2d 605 (Martinez v. Schiffman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sparks v. Kintzing
487 So. 2d 331 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)