Is the Landlord Liable for a Tenant's Dog Bite in Florida?

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Florida's strict liability statute targets the dog's owner directly — which leaves landlords outside its reach unless a separate theory applies.

The statute doesn't reach the landlord

Fla. Stat. §767.04's strict liability applies to the dog's owner. A landlord who doesn't own the dog generally falls outside this framework entirely, even if the bite happened on rental property the landlord owns — ownership of the property isn't the same as ownership of the dog.

Negligence remains a real path

This doesn't mean a landlord is automatically off the hook. A victim could still pursue an ordinary negligence claim against a landlord who knew the tenant's dog was dangerous and had the practical ability to address it — for example, by enforcing a lease provision or requiring the dog's removal — but failed to act.

Knowing a dog exists isn't the same as knowing it's dangerous

A landlord's pet-friendly policy, by itself, generally isn't enough to establish liability. The key fact a negligence claim needs is that the landlord knew this specific dog had dangerous propensities — not merely that tenants were permitted to have dogs under the lease.

A different fault framework applies

Because a landlord claim sounds in ordinary negligence rather than §767.04's strict liability, it generally falls under Florida's modified comparative negligence rule — the 51% bar created by HB 837 — rather than the dog bite statute's own built-in fault reduction, a real procedural difference from a claim against the dog's owner directly.

This is general information, not legal advice. Landlord liability for a tenant's dog turns heavily on the specific facts and what the landlord actually knew. Confirm how this applies to your situation with a licensed Florida attorney.