Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Case No.:
Jack Sixpack,
Petitioner,
and
Jane Roe,
Respondent.
____________________________/
and through her undersigned attorney, moves the Court, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510, for the
entry of a Summary Judgment in her favor as to the allegations listed against the Petitioner, Jack
Sixpack (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner), on the grounds that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact, and that Respondent is entitled to a judgment in her favor as a matter of law.
FACTS
The Respondent left her dog, Buster, with the Petitioner for the day. Buster is a mild-
mannered bulldog, that can has been known to be “stubborn and ornery” on occasion. During
these instances he plants his feet, growls, and raises his fur. Petitioner had bi-monthly contact
with Buster during his year-long relationship with Respondent and had thus experienced that
type of behavior before. While watching Buster that day, Buster urinated on the carpet and whilst
he was preparing to leave a “deposit,” Petitioner attempted to remove Buster outside by grabbing
his collar and pulling. Buster refused to move, planting his feet while simultaneously growling
and raising his fur. Buster took no aggressive action toward Petitioner, and yet Petitioner
punched Buster’s face twice in an attempt to protect himself though at the time the situation had
not gotten dangerous. Buster did not respond to the hits, but Petitioner suffered a cut from
Buster’s protruding teeth on impact. To avoid further injury, Petitioner backed away. Buster then
left a “deposit” on Petitioner’s carpet. Petitioner’s lease ended a month after the incident and
Petitioner lost $50 from his security deposit refund as a result of Buster’s urination and
defecation on the carpet. Petitioner’s wound healed but he contracted a severe infection, forcing
him into a hospital. As a result of infection, Petitioner lost the tip of his right finger and incurred
$100,000 in medical expenses. Petitioner is wary of future pain and suffering following his loss
as well how it might affect his career. He desires damages as he alleges Buster caused the injury
ANALYSIS
1. This Court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter of this action and that of
2. There are no genuine issues as to any material fact and Respondent is entitled to a
3. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 767.01, Dog owners are liable for any damage done for any
damage done by their dogs to a person, however according to Fla. Stat. § 767.04, which refers to
a dog owner’s liability for damages to persons bitten, any negligence on the part of the person
bitten that is a proximate cause of the biting incident reduces the liability of the owner of the dog
by the percentage that the bitten person’s negligence contributed to the incident. This can be
construed in consideration of Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 463 So. 2d 1153 (S.Ct. 1985): “The
defendant is liable when his act of negligence combines with some other concurring or intervening
cause in the sense that, ‘but for’ the other cause as well, injury would not have occurred.”
4. The intervening cause or negligence on the part of Petitioner was his willingness
and conscious effort in reeling back his arm and thrusting it, with great force, forward into the face
of the Respondent’s dog. If not for his own, voluntary and deliberate action, he would not be
suffering from the injury he now has. The resulting damage to his hand as well as the resulting
manner, as per the language of Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 463 So. 2d 1153 (S.Ct. 1985), the
owner or Respondent should be held liable and owe him damages. This holds in line with Fla. Stat.
§ 767.01.
6. Since the aggressive or affirmative action was the extent of the dog’s reaction to
Petitioner, and the resulting injury only occurred because of Petitioner’s step beyond it, Petitioner
7. There is no evidence beyond a growl and raising of fur, which occurred in response
predetermination of the dog’s subsequent reaction is not substantive being that he did nothing more
than what he did. Petitioner is solely responsible for his injury and infection.
8. After Petitioner punched the dog once, the dog remained in his aggravated state so
Petitioner took it upon himself to punch Buster one more time, securing his own injury. Petitioner
even alleged in his deposition, “I knew I hurt my finger.” He admits his own fault in his injury.
9. In light of these facts, it is clear the Petitioner is liable for his own injury,
Respondent is clear of any responsibility in that her dog did nothing but enter an agitated state.
Buster took no action beyond his audible and visual annoyance. The statutes mentioned do not
wherein the pleadings, depositions, facts, and law show there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact, that party is then entitled to a judgment in their favor as a matter of law, in light of Fla. R.
Civ. P. 1.510.
enter Summary Judgment in her favor as to all issues raised in this Motion, and to award any
CERTIFICATEE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Summary
Judgment was mailed to the Petitioner, Jack Sixpack, at 2130 Fakestreet, Orlando FL, 32826 on
October 3, 2017.
_________________________________
Michael Citelli, ESQUIRE
Citelli & Murdock, PL
FBN: 0081583
8630 Buccilli Drive, Suite 309
Orlando, Florida 32829
Telephone: 407.688.5555
Facsimile: 407.321.0988
Designation of Email of Service
Michael@citdoclaw.com
Matt@citdoclaw.com
Jim@citdoclaw.com
Attorneys for Respondent