Cases from cite.case.law:

DAVISON, v. BERG,, 243 So. 3d 489 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . a prominent place on his or her premises a sign easily readable including the words 'Bad Dog.' " § 767.04 . . . that "there are no common law defenses to the statutory cause of action based on sections 767.01 and 767.04 . . . be presented to the jury for a determination of comparative negligence, in accordance with section 767.04 . . . The defenses found in section 767.04, which concerns dog bites, are equally applicable to "damage" from . . . We note that all cases cited construed section 767.04 before its 1993 amendment, which replaced the defense . . .

ARELLANO, v. BROWARD K- K-, 207 So.3d 351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . . § 767.04, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . the chain of proximate causation so as to relieve K-9 from the strict liability imposed by section 767.04 . . . Arellano’s claim, however, is not one sounding in negligence; her claim is founded upon section 767.04 . . . when the dog bite occurs on the owner’s private properly and the owner has posted a "Bad Dog” sign. § 767.04 . . .

TEDROW, R. v. J. CANNON,, 186 So. 3d 43 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Background Jessica Tedrow filed an action in April 2013 against Cannon for strict liability under section 767.04 . . . Section 767.04 provides in relevant part that “[t]he owner of any dog that bites any person ... is liable . . .

GAWTREY, v. HAYWARD,, 50 So. 3d 739 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Gawtrey to obtain a dismissal of the case on the theory that section 767.04, Florida Statutes (2007), . . . See § 767.04; cf. Registe v. . . . Porter, 557 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (noting that “section 767.04 imposes absolute liability . . .

TRAMMELL, v. A. THOMASON,, 559 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . . § 767.01 (Strict Liability) and § 767.04 (Strict Liability) (Dkt. 46) (“Trammell’s Motion”); 2. . . . Sections 767.01 and 767.04. (Dkt. 46 at p. 1). . . . Section 767.04, reads in pertinent part: The owner of any dog that bites any person while such person . . . Section 767.04 makes dog owners strictly liable to any person bitten by their dog and Section 767.01 . . . The legislative intent behind Sections 767.01 and 767.04 makes clear that the strict liability statutes . . .

SUTHERLAND, a SUTHERLAND v. L. PELL,, 738 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 767.04, Fla. Stat. (1997) (providing statutory liability for dog owners); Vasques v. . . .

WIPPERFURTH, v. A. HUIE,, 654 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1995)

. . . DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE AVAILABLE TO A DOG OWNER AS A DEFENSE TO AN ACTION UNDER SECTION 767.04 . . . UNDER SECTION 767.04, DOES THE TERM “OWNER” INCLUDE A KENNEL OWNER OR VETERINARIAN WHO UNDERTAKES THE . . . Huie attempted to recover damages from Wipperfurth pursuant to section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1989 . . . Stickney, 450 So.2d 1111 (Fla.1984), the term “owner,” as used in section 767.04, only applied to the . . . In Belcher, this Court found that “section 767.04 pertains only to the owner. . . .

Ny TRAN, v. BANCROFT,, 648 So. 2d 314 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Although the so-called “dog bite” statute, section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1993) controls actions against . . .

FISEL, v. C. WYNNS R., 650 So. 2d 46 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Consider the difference in the statutes involved herein and section 767.04: The owner of any dog that . . .

A. HUIE, v. WIPPERFURTH, 632 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . We agree with Huie’s contention that section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1989), provided persons bitten . . . In January 1990, when Huie’s injury occurred, section 767.04 provided in pertinent part: The owners of . . . Moxley, 241 So.2d 681, 682 (Fla.1970), the supreme court concluded that section 767.04 superseded the . . . Section 767.04 does not define the term “owner”. In Belcher Yacht, Inc. v. . . . The court stated: [N]ote that section 767.04 pertains only to the owner. . . .

GEORGE, v. MANN,, 622 So. 2d 151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . See generally §§ 767.01 and 767.04, Fla.Stat. (1989) and the plethora of cases whelped by these statutes . . .

FREIRE, a v. LEON, 584 So. 2d 98 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . from the stool while holding a portable phone, thus relieving the owner of liability under section 767.04 . . . Freire filed a complaint premised on Florida’s dog-bite statute, section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1989 . . .

GLENNEY v. ROSS, 45 Fla. Supp. 2d 126 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990)

. . . Citing Belcher Yacht, Inc. v Stickney, 450 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 1984), plaintiff argues that §767.04, Fla . . . The court finds that § 767.04 does not apply to the instant situation and grants summary judgment for . . . Section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1986) imposes absolute liability on a dog owner when his dog bites . . .

J. FENNEMA A. v. HOWARD JOHNSON COMPANY, a a H. Jr. A., 559 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . .2d 29 (Fla.1986), it was held that a property owner was estopped to. rely on the dog-bite statute [§ 767.04 . . .

REGISTE, v. PORTER, d b a s, 557 So. 2d 214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Our supreme court has several times analyzed the legislative intent in enacting section 767.04. . . . Moxley, 241 So.2d 681 (Fla.1970), the supreme court clearly held that section 767.04 has superseded the . . . Moreover, the court in Belcher emphasized that the legislature had not revisited section 767.04 by way . . . As those cases note, section 767.04 imposes absolute liability upon a dog owner for a dog-bite when the . . . The fifth district in Flick so interpreted section 767.04 in the case of a three-year-old child. . . .

OLAVE, v. F. HOWARD, 547 So. 2d 349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Plaintiff brought suit against the dog owner under section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1987), and those . . .

KILPATRICK, v. SKLAR,, 548 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1989)

. . . that the Fireman’s Rule, as a common law defense, does not apply to claims under sections 767.01 and 767.04 . . . district court, in considering the claim under section 767.01, held the defenses available in section 767.04 . . . that there are no common law defenses to the statutory cause of action based on sections 767.01 and 767.04 . . . We also agree with the Third District that only those defenses provided by statute under section 767.04 . . . the Fireman’s Rule, however defined, is not a defense to actions brought under sections 767.01 and 767.04 . . .

S. STANISZESKI v. WALKER, 550 So. 2d 19 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Appellants filed a complaint against ap-pellees pursuant to sections 767.01 and 767.04, Florida Statutes . . . court, in a dog bite case involving a four-year-old child, held that the statutory defense in section 767.04 . . . for any damages done by their dogs to sheep or other domestic animals or livestock, or to persons. 767.04 . . . shall mischievously or carelessly provoke or aggravate the dog inflicting such damage.... §§ 767.01 and 767.04 . . . This defense, found in section 767.04, is applicable to an action filed pursuant to section 767.01. . . .

BELLANCA v. RODRIGUEZ, 539 So. 2d 26 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Bowen, 503 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Section 767.04 Florida Statutes (1983). . . .

REED, v. BOWEN,, 512 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1987)

. . . Shaun brought suit pursuant to section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1983), which provides: The owners of . . . The court found that section 767.04 makes the dog owner an insurer against damage caused by his dog, . . . The instant cause involves just that sort of legislative declaration, for Florida Statute 767.04 states . . . Florida Statute 767.04 thus modifies the common law rule relating to negligence of infants just as it . . .

M. WARD, v. YOUNG,, 504 So. 2d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . The insulation from dog bite liability provided a dog owner through compliance with section 767.04, Florida . . .

REGUEIRA, a v. RAFART, 499 So. 2d 937 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . ’s warning so as to equitably estop them from asserting the defense available to them under Section 767.04 . . . bad dog displayed does not equitably estop defendant from relying on defense available under Section 767.04 . . .

PORTER T. a v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Dr. L., 497 So. 2d 927 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . mischievously provoked or aggravated a dog, thereby precluding the owner’s liability pursuant to section 767.04 . . . , Florida Statutes (1985), which provides: 767.04 Dog owner’s liability for damages to persons bitten . . . apply only in the absence of a legislative declaration, and the legislature has declared via section 767.04 . . . therein, which is in accord with the repeated declarations by the Florida Supreme Court that section 767.04 . . . We hold that a child of tender years can mischievously provoke a dog under Section 767.04 and, thus, . . .

KILPATRICK, v. SKLAR, a k a Dr., 497 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . also contended that his posting of a warning sign, one of the statutory defenses provided by section 767.04 . . . on private property “in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state_” § 767.04 . . . , cause dismissed, 447 So.2d 887 (Fla.1984), this court held that the defenses available in section 767.04 . . . in this case only if they prove one of the statutory defenses in section 767.04 or if they do not own . . . Section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1981), provides: Liability of owners. — The owners of any dog which . . .

REED, a By LAWRENCE, v. BOWEN, 503 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . friend, May Elretta Lawrence, and May Elretta Lawrence, individually, filed an action under section 767.04 . . . person of any age mischievously or carelessly provokes or aggravates a dog within the meaning of section 767.04 . . . Section 767.04 modified the common-law basis of recovery for dog-bite injuries, which was grounded in . . . In this regard, section 767.04 is replete with all inclusive terms such as “any dog,” “any damages,” . . . Malino, 374 So.2d 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979), the court considered the provision in section 767.04 protecting . . .

GODBEY, v. DRESNER B., 492 So. 2d 800 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . prominently displayed “beware of dog” sign provided an absolute defense to the dog attack pursuant to section 767.04 . . . doctrine of equitable estoppel is available to avoid the exemption of liability created by section 767.04 . . . Significantly, the statute [section 767.04] neither expressly disallows application of the doctrine nor . . . found not to be provided, a party would not be entitled to the absolute defense set forth in section 767.04 . . . Section 767.04 provides in pertinent part: [N]o owner of any dog shall be liable for any damages to any . . .

NOBLE, v. A. YORKE,, 490 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1986)

. . . the doctrine, of equitable estoppel available to avoid the exemption from liability created by F.S. 767.04 . . . The Yorkes sued for damages pursuant to section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1981). . . . The trial court’s order of summary judgment was based upon that portion of section 767.04 which provides . . . We agree with the Yorkes and hold that the tort immunity of 767.04 does not extend to a dog owner who . . . However, in Belcher, we noted that the strict liability of section 767.04 is limited to dog owners and . . .

ASSOCIATED HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC. v. LORE, 484 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . However, the statutory defenses of section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1983), which apply to an action . . .

J. KAISER, v. BALEY,, 474 So. 2d 906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . On the gate through the fence was affixed a “bad dog” sign; a warning in accordance with section 767.04 . . . SHARP, J., and BOARDMAN, E.F., Associate Judge, concur. . § 767.04, Fla.Stat. (1983) provides: Dog owner's . . .

FRASER- POTTS v. GRAY, 12 Fla. Supp. 2d 78 (Palm Beach Cty. Ct. 1985)

. . . Defendant’s liability turns on his placement of a “bad dog” sign and on the meaning of Section 767.04 . . . Section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1983), modified the common law by making a dog owner strictly liable . . . Section 767.04, Fla. . . .

CARTER, a v. CITY OF STUART, 468 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1985)

. . . . § 767.04, Fla.Stat. (1983). . He decided to take no action. . . .

B. ANDERSON P. v. WALTHAL, a k a J., 468 So. 2d 291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . In that neither Walthal nor Hannon were the owners of the dog, it is clear that Section 767.04, Florida . . .

JONES, v. UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 463 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1985)

. . . In section 767.04 certain total immunities from owner liability are granted. . . .

A. YORKE v. NOBLE, 466 So. 2d 349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . The first Count of a two count amended complaint sought damages pursuant to F.S. 767.04. . . . Since the strict liability of F.S. 767.04 is limited to the actual owner of the dog, such a cause of . . . Neither F.S. 767.04 nor the decision in Belcher expressly eliminate the applicability of equitable estoppel . . . , and we feel that the same is viable in an action under F.S. 767.04. . . . THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL AVAILABLE TO AVOID THE EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY CREATED BY F.S. 767.04 . . .

BELCHER YACHT, INC. v. J. STICKNEY, Jr., 450 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1984)

. . . The question certified is: WHETHER SECTION 767.04, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979) SUPERSEDED THE COMMON LAW . . . court’s holding on this issue insofar as it applies to the dog owner, Belcher, but note that section 767.04 . . . The district court decision addresses the issue of whether section 767.04 is an alternative to rather . . . Moxley, 241 So.2d 681 (Fla.1970), hold that section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1979), superseded the common . . . As we noted above, section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1979), applies only to the dog owner. . . . I concur with the majority’s holding that section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1979), supersedes the common . . .

KOTCHER, v. V. J. SANTANIELLO a k a KOTCHER, v. W. J. SANTANIELLO, a k a, 438 So. 2d 440 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . the judgment does not apply to the appellants’ posting of signs pursuant to the provisions of section 767.04 . . .

J. STICKNEY, Jr. v. BELCHER YACHT, INC., 424 So. 2d 962 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . statutory liability where the dog bites a person lawfully on the owner’s property, (2) whether Section 767.04 . . . On those facts, the court held: Since Section 767.04 is the applicable law and it is admitted that the . . . first Florida Supreme Court case to hold that the common law on dogbites was superseded by section 767.04 . . . In a separate discussion, later recognized as mere obiter dictum, the Romfh court held that section 767.04 . . . We have found two cases in this district where the court was called upon to interpret section 767.04, . . .

Jo THOMAS, v. WYATT,, 405 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . submitted to the jury on the theories of (1) assault, (2) statutory dog owner’s liability under Section 767.04 . . .

FUSINSKI, d b a Q. T. v. B. ROBERTSON,, 391 So. 2d 771 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . should have been imposed against the defendant in the trial court because of the provisions of Section 767.04 . . .

ROSENFELT, s v. S. HALL,, 387 So. 2d 544 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . defendants relied, inter alia, on an affirmative defense of provocation, per the provisions of section 767.04 . . . The defenses set forth in section 767.04, which concerns dog bites, are also applicable to other damages . . . Section 767.04 reads: Liability of owners. . . .

FLICK, v. MALINO,, 374 So. 2d 89 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . appellees, on the ground that appellee Malino’s decedent was immune from liability by virtue of Section 767.04 . . . She argued successfully before the lower tribunal that Section 767.04, which imposes a strict liability . . . We note in passing that Section 767.04 requires a plaintiff to have been on a dog owner’s premises lawfully . . .

E. RATTET, v. DUAL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., 373 So. 2d 948 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . With regard to Rattet’s attempt to impose, liability pursuant to Section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1975 . . . ), set forth below, the injury must have been the result of a bite. “767.04 Liability of owners. — The . . . Hereunder we are called upon to determine whether the defenses under Section 767.04 are also available . . . Under the statutory liability created by Section 767.01 and 767.04, the owner of a dog is cast in the . . . The first sentence of § 767.04 does not talk about injury on the premises of the dog owner but talks . . .

H. D. MANUCY, Jr. v. MANUCY, 362 So. 2d 478 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . sued appellees in two counts, claiming first that they were strictly liable as dogowners under Section 767.04 . . .

DONNER, v. ARKWRIGHT- BOSTON MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a B. R. F., 358 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1978)

. . . Plaintiff brought suit under Section 767.04, Florida Statutes, and also under the common law. . . . We stated: The contention that Plaintiffs have a cause of action both under Fla.Stat. § 767.04, F.S.A . . . It is concluded that Fla.Stat. § 767.04, F.S.A., supersedes the common law, only in those situations . . . Appel-lee contended that Section 767.04 applied only to dog bite damage and that if Section 767.04 repealed . . . In sum, we find that a dog owner who is brought to trial pursuant to Section 767.04, Florida Statutes . . .

FLICK, v. MALINO a, 356 So. 2d 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . The trial court found that the “bad dog” signs complied with Section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1975), . . . Mal-ino was entitled to immunity from liability under Section 767.04, which provides in relevant part . . . When Section 767.04 was enacted in 1949, it imposed liability on dogowners for their dogs’ bites where . . . that her husband, if sued for Jennifer’s dog bite, would have enjoyed the immunity afforded by Section 767.04 . . .

Dr. WENDLAND v. AKERS N. D., 356 So. 2d 368 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Plaintiff’s case is bottomed on Section 767.04, Florida Statutes. . . . ] fixes liability on the owner for any damage at all caused by his dog; the second statute [Section 767.04 . . . Turning now to Sec. 767.04, it is clear that this enactment was a recognition that the need to protect . . . displayed in a prominent place on his premises a sign easily readable including the words ‘Bad Dog.’ ” Sec. 767.04 . . .

PASKEL v. I. HIGGINS,, 337 So. 2d 416 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . Stat., Sec. 767.04. While, on the authority of Sand v. . . . Since recovery under Fla.Stat., Sec. 767.04 requires such a showing, we reverse for a trial on this liability . . .

HARRIS, a v. MORICONI a, 331 So. 2d 353 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . The instant cause involves just that sort of legislative declaration, for Florida Statute 767.04 states . . . Florida Statute 767.04 thus modifies the common law rule relating to negligence of infants just as it . . . Plaintiffs’ amended complaint specifically alleged that the action was brought under the provisions of F.S. 767.04 . . . F.S. 767.04, with certain exceptions, makes the dog owner the insurer against damage by the dog. . . .

K. SMITH v. J. ALLISON,, 332 So. 2d 631 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . . §§ 767.01 and 767.04, F.S.A. making an owner of a dog virtually an in-insurer of the dog’s conduct, . . .

SAND a v. GOLD, 301 So. 2d 828 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . Subject to the following exception, a dog owner’s liability for his dog biting anyone is based upon § 767.04 . . .

HALL v. RICARDO, a By, 297 So. 2d 849 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . A., and specifically § 767.04 with regard to dog bites. . . . . § 767.04 was such that no reasonable defense could be presented on behalf of the defendant Hall. . . . , though contributory- negligence may not be raised as a defense under the statutes (§ 767.01 and § 767.04 . . . Reversed and remanded for a new trial. . “767.04 Liability of owners. — The owners of any dog which shall . . .

ISAACS, a v. M. POWELL R. U. S. A., 267 So. 2d 863 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . (Italics supplied) Additionally, we observe that Florida has enacted § 767.04, F.S.A., relating to dogs . . .

POCICA, v. BLUE GRASS SHOWS,, 37 Fla. Supp. 186 (Lake Cty. Cir. Ct. 1972)

. . . plaintiffs contended that the complaint stated a cause of action for damages under the dog-bite statute (§767.04 . . . argument of counsel, the court is of the opinion that the complaint states a cause of action under §767.04 . . .

STOUT A. v. J. KEHLENBACK, 265 So. 2d 514 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . Sections 767.01-767.04, F.S.A.; Reid v. Nelson (Sth Cir. 1946) 154 F.2d 724. RAWLS, Acting C. . . .

SEACHORD, v. R. ENGLISH,, 259 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1972)

. . . Section 767.04, F.S.A., and not F.S. Section 767.01, F.S.A. It did not purport to construe F.S. . . .

R. ENGLISH, v. SEACHORD,, 243 So. 2d 193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

. . . . §§ 767.01 and 767.04, F.S.A. making an owner of a dog virtually an insurer of the dog’s conduct, the . . .

MINISALL, M. M. v. KRYSIAK, 242 So. 2d 756 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . Section 767.04, F.S.A., which statute makes the dog owner’s liability absolute unless the owner is within . . . McCAIN, J„ and STEWART, JAMES R., JR., Associate Judge, concur. . 767.04 Liability of Owners. . . .

CARROLL v. E. MOXLEY, 241 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1970)

. . . . § 767.04, F.S.A. We have jurisdiction, Fla.Const., art. . . . The pertinent portion of the statute, Fla.Stat. § 767.04, F.S.A. provides: “The owners of any dog which . . . Stat. § 767.04, F.S.A., and also common law. . . . . § 767.04, F.S.A., superseded the common law and that liability did not lie under the statute since . . . It is concluded that Fla.Stat. § 767.04, F. . . .

HOLLAND, v. SCOTT, a, 204 So. 2d 746 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . David, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 227; Section 767.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. . . .

COMBS v. ROSENDAHL, 29 Fla. Supp. 131 (St. Lucie Cty. Small Cl. Ct. 1966)

. . . Florida Statute 767.04 concerns itself with the responsibility of an owner of a dog which shall bite . . .

SWEET, v. JOSEPHSON,, 173 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1965)

. . . defendant, petitioner, as he entertained the view that since Sec. 767.01, F.S.A., had been repealed by Sec. 767.04 . . . The later statute, Sec. 767.04, passed in 1949, is much more elaborate but is restricted to the “owners . . . with reference to the effect of the later statute upon the earlier one, that when the title of Sec. 767.04 . . . think the conclusion [could] * * * be escaped that as to injury to persons by dogs Chapter 25109 [Sec. 767.04 . . . that it revises the subject matter of the former.’ ” We do not discover any of these features in Sec. 767.04 . . .

JOSEPHSON, v. SWEET,, 173 So. 2d 463 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

. . . Thereafter, in 1949, the legislature adopted § 767.04, which provided, in pertinent part: “The owners . . . The determinative question on appeal, is what effect, if any, did the subsequent legislation (§ 767.04 . . . Berman, Fla.1951, 56 So.2d 127 when Justice Terrell said: “The title to Chapter 25109 [§ 767.04] is ‘ . . . It is obvious from the careful reading of the two sections that § 767.01 was superseded by § 767.04 only . . . in regard to dog bites, because § 767.04 says “bite” not injury. . . .

BALL v. KNAPP, 22 Fla. Supp. 194 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1964)

. . . C. 1951), 56 So. 2d 127, 128, to be “repealed and superseded” by section 767.04 holding liable the owners . . . plaintiff’s verdict where, the dissent reveals, the lower court had ruled that sections 767.01 and 767.04 . . . Berman, supra, because there we said that 767.04 superseded and repealed 767.01 and that said 767.04 . . . curiam court chose to affirm on other grounds, such as failure to have a “Bad Dog” sign even under 767.04 . . . Because the Romfh holding that section 767.01 was superseded by 767.04 dealt exclusively with the dog . . .

L. KNIGHT, H. E. E. v. BURGHDUFF, 102 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1958)

. . . . §, 767.04, F.S.A.) or “Beware of Dogs”, Romfh v. . . . The lower court in disposing of this case held in striking certain defenses “This suit is based on 767.04 . . . Berman, supra, because there we said that 767.04 superseded and repealed 767.01 and that said 767.04 . . .

A. VANDERCAR, v. DAVID,, 96 So. 2d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1957)

. . . In 1949 the legislature enacted Chapter 25109, Laws of Florida, now Section 767.04, F.S.A., as follows . . . : “767.04 Liability of owners “The owners of any dog which shall bite any person, while such person is . . . By its express wording the 1949 Act, Section 767.04, F.S.A., is concerned with a dog owner’s liability . . .