Florida Dog Bite Law FirmWhen an adjuster asks, pleasantly, what you were doing in the moments before the dog bit you, they are not making conversation. They are working on a number — and in Florida that number can reduce your recovery, or under the right circumstances erase it completely.
The provision inside the bite statute
Florida’s dog bite statute creates liability and then immediately qualifies it:
Taken alone, that is a sliding scale. Found 20% at fault, recover 80%. Found 40% at fault, recover 60%. No all-or-nothing moment anywhere in the sentence.
That is how this provision is almost always described. It is also, since 2023, an incomplete picture.
The part that changed in 2023
Florida’s general comparative fault statute, § 768.81, was amended by House Bill 837. It now contains a hard cut-off:
The obvious objection is that a § 767.04 claim is a strict liability claim, not a negligence claim — so why would a statute about negligence actions touch it?
Because of how that statute defines its own scope:
Strict liability is named expressly. And the same subsection forecloses arguing around it with labels: “The substance of an action, not conclusory terms used by a party, determines whether an action is a negligence action.”
So assume there is a cliff at 51%. Below it, your recovery is reduced by your percentage. Above it, the statute says you may not recover any damages at all.
This is a much sharper edge than the reduction provision alone suggests, and it is why “they can only reduce it” is dangerous advice in Florida after 2023. Whether a court applies § 768.81(6) to a § 767.04 claim in your particular case is a question for a lawyer looking at your facts — but the text points one way, and planning around the other way is a bet.
What actually counts as your fault
Not everything the other side raises is negligence, and the statute is narrower than adjusters imply. The conduct has to be negligent and it has to be a proximate cause of the biting incident — not merely something you did beforehand.
Arguments that get raised regularly:
- Reaching over or through a fence, or into a vehicle
- Approaching a dog that was eating, sleeping, or with puppies
- Ignoring a verbal warning from the owner
- Continuing to approach after the dog growled, backed away, or showed teeth
- Entering a closed gate or a posted area
- Running or cycling directly at a dog
- Attempting to break up a dog fight by hand
Arguments that should be pushed back on hard:
- “You shouldn’t have been there.” If you were in a public place, the statute never asked whether you were lawfully present. If you were on private property, § 767.04 defines lawful presence broadly — a legal duty or an express or implied invitation is enough.
- “You’re a delivery driver, you know the risk.” Performing a duty imposed by law or by postal regulations is lawful presence under the statute. Doing your job is not negligence.
- “You petted the dog.” Accepting an invitation to interact with a dog the owner presented as friendly is not obviously careless.
- “You didn’t see the sign.” Whether a sign was prominent and easily readable from where you actually were is a separate question with its own rules, and it is a fact question, not a given.
Children are not held to an adult standard
A child is not expected to assess a dog the way an adult would. And for the sign defense, a child under six is carved out of it entirely by the statute’s own words.
Comparative fault arguments against young children should be treated as an opening position, not a finding.
Why this is the battleground in most cases
In a typical Florida dog bite claim, liability is not seriously in dispute. The dog bit someone; § 767.04 says the owner is liable. There is not much to argue about.
So the argument moves. It moves to the percentage — because that is where the money is, and because a percentage feels negotiable in a way that liability does not. Every ten points an adjuster wins is ten percent of your recovery, taken without ever disputing that their insured’s dog bit you.
And since 2023 there is a version of that argument where they win everything.
What this means for how you handle the claim
Be careful with the recorded statement. The questions are not neutral. “Did you reach out toward the dog?” and “Were you trying to be friendly to the dog?” describe the same physical act and land very differently in a fault analysis.
Do not speculate about what you should have done. People who have been hurt tend to second-guess themselves out loud. “I probably shouldn’t have gotten so close” is not a memory, it is an opinion — and it will be quoted back as an admission.
Document what constrained your choices. A blind corner, a gate that was already open, a dog that gave no warning, a path with nowhere to retreat to. Fault is comparative; what the owner failed to do matters just as much as what you did.
Get the owner’s conduct on the record early. An unlatched gate, a dog known to charge, prior complaints to animal control — these move the percentage in your direction and they are easiest to establish in the first weeks.
If someone has suggested the bite was partly your fault, that is worth a conversation before it becomes a number in a file.