If Malin wants to sue the dog owners she does have a valid cause of action and will likely succeed. A court would likely Malin’s cause of action valid to the rule set by Fla. Stat. § 767.04 and the holding in the case of Flick v. Malino. According to Fla. Stat. § 767.04, an owner of any dog that bites any person on the owners property is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, unless the owner had displayed a sign easily readable including the words “Bad Dog.” Furthermore, the holding in Flick v. Malino reiterates that even when a warning sign is posted in a prominent place, it must be easily readable in order to protect the dog owners from liability. In Flick, a three-year-old child was bitten by a dog and sustained injuries. Although …show more content…
In order for actual notice to have been given, the potential victim must have the ability to read a warning sign placed by the owners. Flick v. Malino. Not only did the owners invite Malin onto their property, they did so with the knowledge that she could not read English. They only told her “we have a dog”, which does not seem as effective as the “Bad Dog” sign. The purpose of the Fla. Stat. § 767.04 is to give notice to those entering a property with a dog that has the potential to cause harm, while still giving the owners the ability to protect themselves from liability. The owners in this case did not adequately warn their guest about the potential danger their dog might pose. Ordinarily the “Bad Dog” sign gives the warning, but since Malin was unable to read the sign it is not an effective means of warning and does not protect the owners from liability. In order for the owners to protect themselves from liability in this instance, they would have needed to give Malin a proper warning in lieu of the “Bad Dog” sign, which they knew would not be easily readable to