Cases from cite.case.law:

DEMELUS, v. KING MOTOR COMPANY OF FORT LAUDERDALE,, 24 So. 3d 759 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . The former section 316.097 is now found in a slightly-reworded form at section 316.1975(1), Florida Statutes . . .

GRAHAM, v. W. STEPHENS,, 779 So. 2d 649 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Section 316.1975(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provides: Unattended motor vehicle.— (1) A person driving . . .

MICHAEL PHILIP, INC. d b a v. SIERRA,, 776 So. 2d 294 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . See § 316.1975, Fla. Slat. . . .

EATON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, v. EDWARDS,, 617 So. 2d 858 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Eaton contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that a violation of section 316.1975 . . . 1991), rev. denied, 599 So.2d 655 (Fla.1992) we specifically addressed the applicability of section 316.1975 . . . , which provides as follows: 316.1975 Unattended motor vehicle.— No person driving or in charge of any . . . In Reteneller, we stated that the trial court correctly held that section 316.1975 was inapplicable to . . . We conclude that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury concerning section 316.1975 and that . . .

L. RETENELLER, Jr. v. PUTNAM,, 589 So. 2d 328 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . no theory would support recovery against these defendants because of the inapplicability of section 316.1975 . . . with the trial judge that it is distinguishable from the instant factual situation because section 316.1975 . . .

L. CLARK, v. MERRITT,, 480 So. 2d 649 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Section 316.1975, Florida Statutes (1981), reads in pertinent part: No person driving or in charge of . . . The vehicle was attended; therefore, the appellee should not have benefit of section 316.1975, Florida . . .

MITCHELL, v. ROBBINS,, 447 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . operator’s failure to remove keys from the ignition, presents a jury question, notwithstanding section 316.1975 . . .

OWEN, v. WAGNER,, 426 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . It is true that Vining holds that it is negligence per se when anyone violates section 316.1975, Florida . . . Further, when an injured party alleges facts showing that a violation of section 316.1975, Florida Statutes . . . court contains no allegations or argument that the cause of action was based on a violation of section 316.1975 . . .

COMMERCIAL CARRIER CORPORATION, v. S. J. G. CORPORATION, d b a A-, 409 So. 2d 50 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . The first theory is negligence per se, predicated on Section 316.1975, Florida Statutes (1979), which . . . While Kenney may well be liable to appellant by virtue of his alleged violation of section 316.1975, . . .

VINING v. AVIS RENT- A- CAR SYSTEMS, INC., 378 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1979)

. . . I would hold that section 316.1975, Florida Statutes (1977), is unconstitutional as a denial of equal . . . general principles of our tort law without relying on the statute to show violation of a duty of care. . 316.1975 . . .