Florida

Summary: The plaintiffs, owners of a seven-year-old trained, registered full blood German Shepherd dog, sued the defendants for the loss of this dog from the kennels at the animal hospital owned and operated by the defendant. The dog had been boarded at defendant's place and while there escaped from the kennel and was never found. This case set the wheels in motion for companion animals damages in Florida when the court affirmed a verdict of $1000, for a purebred dog. The court declined in only applying the fair market value and held that recovery could include special or pecuniary value to the owner.

Summary: Respondent was a corporation engaged in the garbage collection business.  One of its employees maliciously hurled an empty garbage can at plaintiff's pet pedigreed dog, who was tethered at the time, killing it.  The issue before the court was the reconsideration not of  the issue of liability, but for determination only of compensatory and punitive damages.  The court stated that it was obvious from the facts that the act performed by the representative of the respondent was malicious and demonstrated an extreme indifference to the rights of the petitioner. Having this view, there was no prohibition of punitive damages relative to awarding compensation for mental pain, as would be the case if there had been physical injury resulting only from simple negligence.  The court went on to say that the restriction of the loss of a pet to its intrinsic value in circumstances such as the ones before us is a principle we cannot accept and that the malicious destruction of the pet provides an element of damage for which the owner should recover, irrespective of the value of the animal because of its special training.

Summary: Trial court ordered husband and father, in divorce decree, to maintain his life insurance policy naming his children as beneficiaries; he appealed.   Appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.  Appellate court upheld original decree, which also vested in the wife title to "some poodle dogs."

Summary: This article discusses the state laws that govern the import, possession, use, and treatment of Great Apes in Florida. In general, a state permit is required to import or possess apes. The state does not issue permits to keep apes as pets; however, individuals who possessed apes prior to the 1980 ban may be permitted to keep those apes for the remainder of the animals’ lives. The state does issue permits to import and possess apes for commercial or scientific uses to applicants who are qualified by age and experience and who have appropriate facilities. Permittees must comply with stringent legal requirements for the housing, care, maintenance, and use of apes. Also included within the article are local ordinances which have been enacted by counties and municipalities to restrict or regulate Great Apes within political subdivisions of the state.

Summary: This Florida regulation sets forth the requirements to obtain a permit for wildlife rehabilitation.

Summary: This chapter of the Florida Administrative Code contain the rules of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission relating to the possession of wildlife in captivity and includes permit requirements for the possession of listed animals and sets minimum standards for the maintenance and transportation of the same.

Summary: This chapter of the Administrative Code provides the definitions for the remaining chapters of the Code, and includes a declaration of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's authority to regulate all wild animal life within the state.

Summary: These Florida rules provide that no person shall knowingly or negligently allow any dog to pursue or molest any wildlife during any period in which the taking of such wildlife by the use of dogs is prohibited. No person shall knowingly allow a dog under their care to enter or remain upon a critical wildlife area during any period in which public access is prohibited by the order establishing such area.

Summary: This rule provides amnesty to non-native pet owners who voluntarily relinquish their illegal animals to state or county wildlife agencies or during Commission-sponsored amnesty events.

Summary: Under these Florida administrative provisions, three separate classes of captive wildlife were created. Class I, the most regulated class, includes large primates, big cats, bears, elephants, and large reptiles among others. The regulations state that Class I wildlife shall not be possessed for personal use (unless obtained before August 1, 1980 and permitted). The permit requirements to keep listed wildlife in captivity are outlined in §68A-6.0022.