Dean Frankel v. Jared Schmelzer et al.

Case Background

The plaintiff, Dean Frankel, filed the Dog Bite lawsuit on November 3, 2017, in the Florida State Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County. The case number was 2017-025652-CA-01. Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr presided over the case.

Cause

On March 31, 2017, Dean Frankel, the plaintiff, was exiting his private driveway adjacent to a public roadway on LaGorce Island in Miami Beach, Florida, when Jared Schmelzer’s dog attacked and bit him. Schmelzer, the defendant, was the registered owner of the dangerous dog, which had a known propensity to attack and bite people due to a prior history of such behavior. However, Schmelzer failed to properly train, supervise, or restrain the dog and did not warn Frankel of the dog’s vicious tendencies.

Injuries

As a direct and proximate result of the dog attack, Frankel suffered injuries to his body and extremities. He experienced pain, incurred medical expenses, and endured disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and lost earnings both in the past and future. Frankel’s injuries are permanent or continuing, and he will continue to experience these losses and impairments in the future.

Damages

Frankel demands judgment against Schmelzer for compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest, attorney’s fees, court costs, and any other relief the court deems just and proper. He also requests a trial by jury on all issues triable by right.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s):Dean Frankel
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Zachary A. Friedman
  • Defendant(s):Jared Schmelzer | Applause Your Paws Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendants: Hayley H. Ryan| Ralf R. Rodriguez | Farrah C. Fugett-Mullen 

Claims

Strict Liability Claim:

Frankel brings a strict liability claim against Schmelzer under Florida Statute § 767.04. Schmelzer is strictly liable for Frankel’s damages because Frankel was not negligent and did not proximately cause the dog attack.

Negligence Claim:

Frankel also brings a negligence claim against Schmelzer. Schmelzer breached his duty of care by allowing a dangerous dog to reside on the premises, failing to properly train, supervise, or restrain the dog, and neglecting to warn Frankel of the dog’s known vicious propensities. This negligence directly and proximately caused Frankel’s injuries and damages.

Defense

Schmelzer, through his counsel, denied the allegations in the First Amended Complaint and demanded strict proof. While Schmelzer admitted to owning a dog, he denied the remaining allegations concerning the dog. Schmelzer denied both the strict liability and negligence claims and demanded strict proof of these allegations. He also contended that Frankel’s own negligence and/or reckless conduct was the proximate cause of any injury Frankel may have suffered. Schmelzer requested that the court enter judgment in his favor and against Frankel, and award him his costs associated with this action.

Jury Verdict

On March 20, 2024, the jury found that Frankel was not negligent in a way that legally caused his losses or injuries. They awarded him $750,000 for damages related to pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life, for both past and future impacts.

Court Documents:

Complaint

Answer

Jury Verdict