Title: CE America, Inc. v. Antinori

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

210 So. 2d 443 (1968)
C.E. AMERICA, INC., Appellant,
v.
Honorable Paul ANTINORI, Jr., As State Attorney, Etc., Appellee.
No. 36520.

Supreme Court of Florida.
February 7, 1968.
Adhered to On Rehearing June 13, 1968.
Charles J. Cheves, Jr., of Icard, Merrill, Cullis & Timm, Sarasota, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Robert R. Crittenden and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Alan R. Schwartz, of Horton & Schwartz, Miami, as amicus curiae, for Bulls and Bullfighters of America, Inc.
WHITE, JOS. S., Circuit Judge, retired.
Appellant, as plaintiff in the Circuit Court, sought a decree declaring it to be lawful to stage a "Portugese-style bloodless simulated bullfight" for public entertainment. Upon trial on plaintiff's complaint, defendant's answer and the testimony of the witnesses, the trial judge ruled that the performance would not violate St. 828.12, F.S.A., but would violate St. 548.01, F.S.A.
Plaintiff has appealed direct to this Court because of the presence of constitutional questions.
St. 548.01, F.S.A. provides: "Any person who shall voluntarily engage in any pugilistic exhibition, fight or encounter, with or without gloves, between man and man, or in an exhibition or fight between man and bull, or between man and any other animal, for money or anything of value, or upon the result of which any money or anything of value is to be collected, acquired, bet or wagered or to see which any admission fee is charged, directly or indirectly, shall be punished by a fine of not less than two thousand five hundred, nor more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than five years."
St. 828.12, F.S.A., provides: "Whoever unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, tortures, *444 torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily or cruelly beats, mutilates or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, unless otherwise provided."
The performance which plaintiff identifies as a "Portugese-style bloodless simulated bullfight" is described in the record as follows:
Just how this idea of a "simulated" fight is going to be gotten across to the bull is not explained. At any rate, so we are informed, his concern with such matters was not recognized under the common law. Animals were possessed of no inherent right to protection from cruelty or abuse at the hand of man. However, in a more civilized society, it is now generally recognized that legislation which has for its purpose the protection of animals from harassment and ill-treatment is a valid exercise of the police power. See 4 Am.Jur.2d Animals, Sec. 27.
It follows that if this public performance of a "bloodless" bullfight results in cruelty to the bull, or danger to humanity, it falls within the purview of the statutes in question and is unlawful. On the other hand, if there is no cruelty or ill-treatment involved, *445 or danger of bodily harm, the police power of the State cannot be exercised to prevent such an exhibition.
The statement "The waving of a cape does not anger or infuriate the bull, but simply is used as a method of drawing his attention" is contrary to common sense and common experience. Statements such as this upon which appellant relies to support the conclusion that this is to be a harmless exhibition cannot qualify as "substantial evidence" since they are unreliable in the light of reason.
It is a matter of common knowledge that these bulls are bred to develop a pugnacious and vicious disposition. The acts of the performers in the bullring are designed to arouse and incite the bull's inherent fighting spirit. He is pestered and tormented into a fury. He paws the earth and bellows with rage, provoking the hoots and contemptuous laughter of the spectators. Regardless of the humor of his tormentors in the bullring, the bull is in a fighting mood. In the wild rush of fury, with blood in his eyes, he charges his tormentor, head down, nostrils distended, horns aimed, bent on destruction. The performers badger and tantalize him without end, until the poor brute is lashed into agonizing frenzy.
It is explained in the record: "In the event that any of the performers should slip and fall to the ground or otherwise be in danger, several men are standing by at all times to go to his aid. Escape gates and other safety devices will also be provided." If the bull is not enraged and there is no danger to the performers or spectators, why is it necessary to have "several men" standing by at all times to give aid, and to provide "escape gates and other safety devices"?
It is this element of risk which appeals to and arouses the morbid curiosity of the spectator. They seek the thrill of the narrow escape, the brutality of the bull, the gory spectacle. If the bull fails to show rage and violent anger the show is a "flop".
On the occasion of enjoining such an exhibition as a nuisance, its brutality was described in the case of State ex rel. Crow v. Canty, 207 Mo. 439, 105 S.W. 1078, 15 L.R.A.,N.S., 747, as follows:
Such an exhibition shocks the sensibilities of any person possessed of humane instincts. The people of the State of Florida, through their legislature, have taken a stand on the subject and the performance involved here falls within the prohibition of the statutes thus enacted.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, ROBERTS and ERVIN, JJ., and SPECTOR, District Court Judge, concur.
CALDWELL, C.J., and DREW, J., dissent.