Florida Jury Verdict Reporter

Nassau County

(25) LACEY CASSIDY vs. LINDA TAYLOR (Circuit Court of Nassau County, 4th Judicial Circuit, Florida)

County/Docket #/Judge: Nassau / 2020-CA-000092 / Eric C. Roberson

Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s): T. C. Roberts and Brent C. Latour of Latour Roberts, P.A., Jacksonville, FL

Defendant(s) Attorney(s): Pro Se

Age/Sex/Occupation Of Plaintiff: n/a / F / Mail Carrier

Cause Of Injury: Negligence/Strict Liability/Dog Attack/Mail Carrier Bitten By Dog. On Feb. 23, 2022, plaintiff Lacey Cassidy, a mail carrier, filed an amended complaint against defendant Linda Taylor. Plaintiff alleged that on Dec. 6, 2019, she was lawfully on plaintiff’s property as a mail carrier when one or more of defendant’s three dogs, who were mixed pit bull breeds, exited the house and attacked plaintiff, causing lacerations to her right arm and right leg. Plaintiff claimed that although defendant was aware of the dogs’ dangerous propensities because at least one had attacked a person previously, defendant did not display any signs including the words “Bad Dog.” Plaintiff brought claims for strict liability under Fla. Stat. § 767.04 and for negligence. Defendant argued that the previous incident was not a dog bite because no skin was broken and that the FedEx delivery person who was allegedly bitten then was trespassing because he was not delivering anything but, rather, had asked to use plaintiff’s phone to check an address. Defendant claimed that plaintiff, who came to her porch to deliver a certified letter, could have simply placed a notice in defendant’s mailbox by the road. According to defendant, when plaintiff came to her door, one of the three dogs broke through a pet door despite her son’s attempt to restrain him. Defendant stated that she had had to surrender the dog that bit plaintiff.
The court held a bench trial.

Nature Of Injury: Personal injuries including lacerations to right arm and right leg; pain and suffering.

Expert Witnesses: n/a

Judgment: $45,000 for Plaintiff on Oct. 19, 2023.

Editor’s Note: In its final judgment order, the court described defendant, who appeared by telephone, as “extremely rude and disruptive”; in addition, a person in the background kept commenting on the proceedings despite the court’s repeated instructions to stop doing so. The court found that defendant had no warning signs regarding the dogs and that the dog in question had been aggressive toward other people prior to the incident. Defendant’s defense was that plaintiff, in defendant’s words, was an “ignorant mail carrier” who should not have been trying to deliver mail to her front door. The court noted that plaintiff had scarring from the bites and had undergone several painful injections into her wounds as part of her medical treatment.