Florida’s sign defense has an explicit carve-out, and it is the first thing to check.
The statute protects the owner “except as to a person under the age of 6.” For a child under six, it does not matter how large the sign was, how prominently it was posted, or how clearly it was worded. The defense simply does not reach them.
Florida does not pretend a four-year-old can read a warning and act on it, and the statute says so.
The age line is exact. A child of six years and one month is outside that exception — but the comparative fault analysis that applies instead asks what could reasonably be expected of a child that age, which is a very different question from what could be expected of an adult. Fault arguments against young children should be treated as an opening position, not a finding.
Children’s claims are also valued differently, because a scar on a growing child changes over years and revision surgery is often staged into adulthood.
If an adjuster has raised a sign against a young child’s claim, they are either mistaken or hoping you are.
The age line is exact
The statute says “except as to a person under the age of 6.” That is a hard line, not a guideline.
Under 6 — the sign defence does not apply at all. Its size, placement and wording are irrelevant.
6 or older — the exception does not apply, and the sign becomes a live issue. But comparative fault then asks what could reasonably be expected of a child that age, which is a very different question from what could be expected of an adult. A fault argument against a seven-year-old is an opening position, not a finding.
What still applies for a child of any age
The sign carve-out is not the only thing in a child’s favour.
The owner’s own negligence defeats the sign regardless of age. An unlatched gate, a dog left loose, a known-faulty tether — these put the case back on the owner whatever was posted and however old the child is.
Children’s claims are valued differently, and not out of sympathy. A scar on a growing child changes over years, revision surgery is frequently staged into adulthood, and the horizon is a lifetime rather than a recovery period. What drives that.
The psychological effect is part of the claim. A child who will not play outside, or will not visit a house with a dog, has suffered something real — but only if somebody wrote it down. Keep a dated note.
If an adjuster raises the sign against a young child
They are either mistaken or hoping you are. The carve-out is in the statute’s own words, and it is not a matter of argument.