Trespassing, Provocation & the Bad Dog Sign

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Florida's strict liability statute is strong for victims — but it comes with real, specific limits that can change the entire shape of a claim.

Trespassing takes you outside the statute entirely

Fla. Stat. §767.04's strict liability only protects people who were in a public place or lawfully present on private property. A trespasser isn't covered by the statute at all and would need to pursue a different, generally harder-to-prove theory to recover anything.

The Bad Dog sign: a real defense, with real limits

The sign must be prominently placed and easily readable, bearing the words "Bad Dog" — Florida courts have also accepted "Beware of Dog" (Romfh v. Berman, 1951) — and must actually be capable of giving notice to the victim (Carroll v. Moxley, 1970). Even when properly posted, the defense fails in two situations: if the victim was under age 6, or if the injury resulted from the owner's own negligent act or omission. Courts have gone further still, holding the sign doesn't protect an owner if the victim was simply too young to read it, regardless of the exact age cutoff (Flick v. Malino, 1978).

A posted sign doesn't end the analysis

Even where the sign defense applies, a victim may still recover through an ordinary negligence claim — for example, by showing the owner knew the dog was dangerous and failed to secure it adequately despite the posted warning.

Comparative fault, built into the statute itself

Unlike states that rely on a separate general comparative negligence statute, Florida's dog bite law builds the fault reduction directly into §767.04's text: any negligence by the bitten person that was a proximate cause of the incident reduces the owner's liability by that percentage.

This is general information, not legal advice. Whether an exception applies depends heavily on the specific facts. Confirm how these defenses might affect your case with a licensed Florida attorney.