Renter or homeowner?

[ecmst12]

Prove that a vehicle was operating over the speed limit (which in this case it was not). In most cases, it can't be done.

Speeding also does NOT remove the dog owner's liability for failing to control his animal and keep it out of the street.

 

[Ogna]

my friends know me as the slow driver... lol if the limit is 40 ill go 40 or 35 if im coasting to save gas hehe so im not worried out speeding blah blah. zinger and all others, thanks a lot!!!!!!

 

[Zigner]

my friends know me as the slow driver... lol if the limit is 40 ill go 40 or 35 if im coasting to save gas hehe so im not worried out speeding blah blah. zinger and all others, thanks a lot!!!!!!

You're welcome - good luck!

 

[Zigner]

Well, that should be an improvement over "charlatan," so I remain indebted to you for the upgrade/

No problem - I'm glad you acknowledge the fact that you are wrong. Please refrain from posting blatantly false information in the future.

 

[Zigner]

Not to worry, Zig. As you have so accurately observed, I do that every day! Just put it down to force of habit, or perhaps mental retardation; whatever you like. I really don't mind. And incidentally, I never give up. Tenacity and persistence are traits that lead to victory in a system of law based on adversity.

Once again - you do a real disservice to the users of this site who might get fooled in to thinking you know what you are talking about.

 

[Zigner]

QUOTE]

Sorry, ecmst, you don't have to "prove" anything; all you have to do is convince the jury. Perhaps a subtle difference, to be sure.

As for your absolution comment, that rather depends of the State. IF the State has a Statute on strict liability, THEN it most assuredly does. Sorry about that. Do have a nice day.

Hapless - now you even admit that you're guessing. Well, our OP can clearly separate the wheat from the chaff. (In case you missed it, yes, I'm calling you the chaff)

 

[Mass_Shyster]

If the jury finds that the auto was operated over the posted speed limit, and that becomes a matter of strict liability - the motorist is responsible.

Actually, that would fall under negligence per se.

From Blacks:

negligence per se. Negligence established as a matter of law, so that breach of the duty is not a jury question. • Negligence per se usually arises from a statutory violation. — Also termed legal negligence.

 

[HappyWanderer]

It is NOT negligence per se in regards to a dog damaging a vehicle when the dog got loose and a car hit it. It is NOT negligence per se to hit something when going over the speed limit, although it could be used as evidence as negligence.

From the Florida Jury instruction manual put out by their Supreme Court:

VIOLATION OF NONTRAFFIC PENAL STATUTE
OR ORDINANCE AS NEGLIGENT

Read or paraphrase the applicable statute or
refer to the ordinance admitted in evidence.

Violation of this [statute] [ordinance] is negligence. If you find that a person alleged to have been
negligent violated this [statute] [ordinance], such person was negligent. You should then determine
whether such negligence was a legal cause of the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] complained of.

NOTE ON USE

This charge should not be given in a case involving violation of a traffic regulation prescribed by statute or
ordinance or in other cases in which the violation is only evidence of negligence. Use charge 4.11 instead. Neither should
this charge be used in Astrict liability@ cases in which liability is predicated on violation of a statute enacted to protect a
particular class of persons who are unable to protect themselves. In such cases, the violator is strictly liable for the
consequent injury, even though the violation was not the Aproximate@ or Alegal@ cause by traditional tests (charge 5.1).
Sloan v. Coit International, Inc., 292 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1974); Tamiami Gun Shop v. Klein, 109 So. 2d 189 (3d D.C.A. Fla.
1959), cert. disch. 116 So. 2d 421. See deJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973).

COMMENT

It is Anegligence per se@ to violate a penal statute or ordinance, not regulating traffic, which was enacted to protect
a particular class of persons from a particular injury or type of injury. deJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 281
So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973). When the legislative authority enacts such a statute or ordinance, it thereby prescribes a minimum
standard of reasonable care to which every reasonably careful person will adhere. The jury is not at liberty to determine
that the violation of such a standard is not negligence. Richardson v. Fountain, 154 So. 2d 709 (2d D.C.A. Fla. 1963),
cert. den. 157 So. 2d 818, and cases cited 154 So. 2d at 711; 38 Am. Jur. Negligence '158, at 827B29; but compare
Mastrandrea v. J. Mann, Inc., 128 So. 2d 146 (3d D.C.A. Fla. 1963), cert. den. 133 So. 2d 320.

Leash laws were not enacted to protect cars.

VIOLATION OF STATUTE, ORDINANCE OR REGULATION
EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE

Read or paraphrase the applicable statute or
refer to the ordinance or regulation admitted in evidence.

Violation of this [statute] [ordinance] [regulation] is evidence of negligence. It is not, however,
conclusive evidence of negligence. If you find that a person alleged to have been negligent violated such
a [statute] [ordinance] [regulation], you may consider that fact, together with the other facts and
circumstances, in determining whether such person was negligent.

NOTE ON USE

This charge is to be used for the violation of both traffic and nontraffic regulations, ordinances, or codes where the
violation constitutes evidence of negligence, for example: (1) building code violations, see Lindsey v. Bill Arflin Bonding
Agency, Inc., 645 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Morowitz v. Vistaview Apartments, Ltd., 613 So.2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA
1993); Holland v. Baguette, Inc., 540 So.2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); (2) OSHA regulations, see Jupiter Inlet Corp. v.
Brocard, 546 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); (3) governmental statutes or ordinances, see Gabriel v. Tripp, 576 So.2d 404
(Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (statutory violation making it unlawful to knowingly transmit a sexually transmissible disease);
Bennett M. Lifter, Inc. v. Varnado, 480 So.2d 1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (violation of residential Landlord Tenant Act, '
83.51, Fla. Stat. (1983); Walt Disney World Co. v. Merritt, 404 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (violation of State Fire
Marshal's Rules and Regulations); Hines v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 383 So.2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (statutory
violation of emission of gases and noxious odors); Jones v. Florida East Coast R.R. Co., 220 So.2d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA
1969) (violation of municipal ordinance requiring railroad crossing signals); Conroy v. Briley, 191 So.2d 601 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1966) (violation of city ordinance regarding handrail on stairways); Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Pollack, 154
So.2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) (city ordinance regulating speed of trains within municipal limits).

This charge should not be given if the statute or ordinance in question provides that its violation is not evidence of
negligence. E.g., ' 316.613, Fla. Stat. (1997) (failure to provide and use a child passenger restraint inadmissible in civil
action as evidence of negligence).
COMMENT

This instruction was revised to render it applicable in a generic sense to all
statutory or regulatory violations which are determined to constitute evidence of
negligence, in addition to violations of traffic regulations. For instruction related to
statute or ordinance violations which constitute negligence per se, see charge 4.9.

I think the real issue will be if the driver or the dog owner was NEGLIGENT.

 

[Zigner]

I think the real issue will be if the driver or the dog owner was NEGLIGENT.

Let's see...driver was driving legally at a safe speed.
Owner of the dog allowed their dog to roam freely and said dog entered the path of the vehicle.

It's easy to see where the negligence lies.

 

[HappyWanderer]

Owner of the dog "allowed" him to roam free? What if the gas man opened the gate? What if kids next door let him out? What if any one of a number of things which would not make the dog owner NEGLIGENT. Do you have any other random guesses to help out Ogna?

By the way, as was posted through the jury instructions, you were legally in error supposing that because a dog was off the leash the owner was negligent. It was great how hard you insisted on it though.

 

[Zigner]

Owner of the dog "allowed" him to roam free? What if the gas man opened the gate? What if kids next door let him out? What if any one of a number of things which would not make the dog owner NEGLIGENT. Do you have any other random guesses to help out Ogna?

By the way, as was posted through the jury instructions, you were legally in error supposing that because a dog was off the leash the owner was negligent. It was great how hard you insisted on it though.

Wander along now (it's the dog owners responsibility to maintain control of their animal)

 

[HappyWanderer]

I assume you can read. I posted the civil jury instruction pointing out why such a statement is legally incorrect. I understand how the law can be hard and how it's much easier to make it up then to learn it. But, I made it easy for you and posted it. Do you have some actual legal advice you'd like to share?

 

[Zigner]

I assume you can read. I posted the civil jury instruction pointing out why such a statement is legally incorrect. I understand how the law can be hard and how it's much easier to make it up then to learn it. But, I made it easy for you and posted it. Do you have some actual legal advice you'd like to share?

Again - wander on with the rest of the Chaff.

 

[Zigner]

As I mentioned before, the OP can separate the wheat from the chaff. I'm done here.

 

[HappyWanderer]

Does that usually work? Does a dismissive attitude convince others the law is what you suppose? It's not. It is not negligence per se for a dog to be loose--which is what you're claiming by your statements.

Negligence must be proven here. Zinger is not reliable as to Florida law. At least, the Florida Supreme Court disagrees with him.

I wonder who is more knowledgeable about Florida Civil law, the Florida Supreme Court or a FreeAdvice Senior Member who doesn't back up anything he's claimed in this thread?

Your call Ogna.