Florida’s dog bite law entered uncertain territory in 2026. When the legislature passed House Bill 837 in March 2023, it fundamentally restructured how comparative fault works across Florida civil litigation — replacing the state’s longstanding pure comparative negligence system with a modified 51% bar rule. Under the new standard, any plaintiff found more than 50% at fault for their own injuries cannot recover damages at all. For most personal injury cases, this shift is consequential but legally clear. For dog bite victims pursuing claims under Florida Statute §767.04, however, the picture remains anything but settled as of 2026.
No Florida appellate court has yet issued a definitive ruling on whether HB 837’s modified comparative negligence framework applies to strict liability dog bite claims — a gap that remained open as of May 2026. That silence is not academic — it is shaping real settlement negotiations happening right now across the state. Victims, defense insurers, and attorneys are operating in a legal gray zone where the applicable calculation method can mean the difference between full compensation and zero recovery.
What HB 837 Actually Changed — and What It Left Ambiguous
Before HB 837 took effect, Florida operated under a pure comparative negligence system. A plaintiff who was 90% responsible for their own injuries could still recover 10% of their damages. That framework was broadly permissive and applied across negligence-based tort claims. HB 837 replaced this with a modified comparative negligence standard that bars recovery entirely when the plaintiff bears more than 50% of the fault for the incident.
The statute governing Florida dog bite liability — Florida Statute §767.04 — is a strict liability provision. It does not require a victim to prove that a dog owner acted negligently. Instead, it imposes liability simply because the dog bite occurred, with limited exceptions for trespassing and provocation. The legal question that remains unanswered in 2026 is whether HB 837’s comparative negligence bar — a framework designed primarily for negligence torts — can override or modify the operation of a strict liability statute that predates it and contains its own provocation-based defense language. Adding further complexity, the Pam Rock Act (ch. 2025-61, Laws of Fla.) revised Florida’s dangerous-dog classification and enforcement standards, introducing additional regulatory considerations that intersect with ongoing §767.04 litigation in 2026.
Practitioners at firms tracking HB 837 dog bite comparative negligence issues note that two distinct textual arguments have emerged. The first holds that HB 837’s language targets general negligence actions and was not written with strict liability statutes in mind, meaning §767.04 claims should be evaluated under their own internal standards without the 51% bar. The second interpretation argues that comparative fault principles have always touched dog bite cases to some degree — particularly through provocation defenses — and that HB 837 extended and formalized that framework across all civil tort claims regardless of liability theory. As of 2026, Florida’s appellate courts have not conclusively resolved which reading controls.
Two Competing Settlement Calculation Methods in 2026
Patricia Coleman is a Animal Liability Legal Researcher with extensive knowledge of personal injury law and settlement values across the United States. With years of experience analyzing dog bite claims only cases, Patricia helps injury victims understand their legal rights and the potential value of their claims. Patricia is not an attorney and the information provided is for educational purposes only.