Worth pursuing when it fits, because a landlord’s policy is frequently far larger than a tenant’s — and in many cases the tenant has no policy at all.
Section 767.04 is not the route. It makes the owner of the dog liable, and a landlord who does not own the dog is outside it. The claim against a landlord is a separate negligence or premises theory, pleaded alongside rather than instead — which the statute expressly permits, since its remedy is “in addition to and cumulative with any other remedy.”
Two questions decide it. What did the landlord know about that specific dog, and what could they have done about it?
Facts that help:
- Prior complaints from other tenants about the same dog
- A prior bite, or a prior animal control report at that address
- The landlord having seen the dog behave aggressively
- A lease term about dogs that the landlord did not enforce
- The bite occurring in a common area the landlord controls — a hallway, a stairwell, a shared yard, a laundry room
General awareness that a tenant has a dog is usually not enough on its own. Knowledge of a dangerous dog, plus the ability to act, is the combination that matters.
Note what does not matter any more. Breed. Florida preempted breed-specific local regulation statewide in 2023, and § 767.04 never turned on breed regardless.
Where a property manager or HOA also had notice and control, they may be separate defendants with separate policies. Finding every policy is usually where recoverable value is decided.