Ohio Dog Bite Law

Ohio is a strict liability state that makes a dog owner, harborer or keeper liable for an injury to a person.

• Overview
• Text of the Ohio dog bite statute
• Update on laws regulating pit bulls in this State
• If you are an attorney who is researching the law in this state, click here.
• If your case involves injury to a dog, see What To Do If Your Dog Is Injured or Killed.

Overview

Ohio is a strict liability state, meaning that it has a dog bite statute that has eliminated the common law's "one bite rule." If the statute does not reach the person against whom the victim needs to make his claim, he can proceed upon the scienter cause of action. In Ohio, a suit for damages resulting from dog bites can be instituted under both statutory and common law. Warner v. Wolfe (1964), 176 Ohio St. 389, 393.

"Harborer" and "keeper" classification can also prevent recovery

If the dog owner's friend or mother drops in for a visit, and takes the dog for a walk or even simply holds the dog on a leash for a moment, Ohio courts will not allow him or her to recover under the dog bite statute. This is because the statute makes a "keeper" liable for dog bite injuries. If a keeper is bitten by a dog, and a keeper is liable under the statute, then the dog has bitten someone who appears to be liable for that very dog bite.

In Johnson v. Allonas (Ohio App. Third Dist., 1996) 116 Ohio App. 3d 447, the Court held that the companion of a dog owner’s father was a "keeper" of the dog within the meaning of the dog bite statute when she took it upon herself to take the dog outside to relieve himself, since she was the person in physical charge or care of dog at time of the accident.

In Beuttner v. Beasley (Ohio App. Eight Dist., Cuyahoga, 04-15-2004) Number 83271, 2004-Ohio-1909, 2004 WL 813515, the Eight Appellate District for Cuyahoga County held that a woman whose boyfriend’s dog bit her face would not be entitled to recover against the boyfriend for the dog’s action where the woman lived with the boyfriend, and cared for the dog on a daily basis.

Similarly, in Bowman v. Stott (Ohio App. Ninth Dist., Summit, 12-31-2003) Number 21568, 2003-Ohio-7182, 2003 WL 23094923, the Summit County Court of Appeals held that there was a genuine issue as to material facts as to whether a roommate bitten by the owner’s dog was a "harborer" of the dog so as to preclude a claim for damages under Ohio Revised Code §955.28, Ohio’s strict liability dog bite statute.

Negligence

Ohio law is not completely kind to dog bite victims, however. The courts have effectively eliminated the negligence cause of action, having confused it with the common law strict liability action for keeping an animal known to be dangerous. These are two entirely separate legal theories, but the Ohio courts have conflated them, as is evident in this quote from Webb v. Prout, 2006 -Ohio- 4792 (Ohio App. Dist.5 09/05/2006):

To prevail on a common law negligence claim, the victim must show that the defendant harbored the dog with knowledge of its vicious tendencies. [Citing Burgess v. Tackas (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 294, 297, 708 N.E.2d 285.]

Similarly, in Bowman v. Stott, 2003 -Ohio- 7182 (Ohio App. Dist.9 12/31/2003), it was held that:

Under the common law, a plaintiff suing for damages inflicted by a dog under a theory of general negligence must show: (1) the defendant owned or harbored the dog; (2) the dog was vicious; (3) the defendant knew of the dog's viciousness; and (4) the defendant was negligent in keeping the dog. [Bowman v. Stott, 2003 -Ohio- 7182 (Ohio App. Dist.9 12/31/2003), relying on Flint, 80 Ohio App.3d at 25-26.]

Even if the victim is a harborer of the dog that caused injury to her, she nevertheless retains the right to a common law negligence cause of action against the dog's owner. Bowman v. Stott, 2003 -Ohio- 7182 (Ohio App. Dist.9 12/31/2003), Khamis v. Everson (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 220, 227, Warner v.Wolfe (1964) 176 Ohio St. 389, 392-393. Therefore, harborer status is not a proper basis upon which to deny a common law negligence claim.

Landlord liability

Ohio law is rather tough against the victim who attempts to make a claim against a landlord. The landlord had to be an owner, keeper or harborer of the dog. "Keeper" means that the landlord was holding onto the dog when the attack happened, or something similar. The only realistic possibility of holding the landlord liable, therefore, would be that he or it was a "harborer." This means that the attack had to happen upon a "common area" of the premises. If the bite took place inside the dog owner's apartment, there is no way to hold the landlord liable for it.

The Ohio courts make the following distinctions regarding "owner," "keeper" and "harborer":

An "owner" is the person to whom a dog belongs, while a "keeper" has physical control over the dog. Flint v. Holbrook (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 21, 25, 608 N.E.2d 809. A "harborer" is one who has possession and control of the premises where the dog lives, and silently acquiesces to the dog's presence. Id. [Webb v. Prout, 2006 -Ohio- 4792 (Ohio App. Dist.5 09/05/2006).]

In Ohio, the terms owner, keeper, and harborer, as used in R.C. 955.28, have been defined by case law. An owner is the person to whom the dog belongs. Garrard v. McComas (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 179, 182. The keeper has physical charge or care of the dog. Id. Johnson v. Allonas (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 447, 449. In determining whether a person is a harborer of the dog, the focus has been said to shift from possession and control of the dog to possession and control of the premises where the dog lives. Godsey v. Franz (Mar. 13 1992), 6th Dist. No. 91WM000008. A harborer is one who "has possession and control of the premises where the dog lives, and silently acquiesces to the dog's presence." Khamis, at 226, citing Flint v. Holbrook (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 21, 25. "'Acquiescence' is essential to 'harborship' and requires some intent." Thompson v. Irwin (Oct. 27, 1997), 12th Dist. No. CA97-05-101, citing Godsey v. Franz (Mar. 13, 1992), 6th Dist. No. 91WM000008.

A friend of the family who went for a walk with a family member and, on that walk, was asked to hold the dog's leash while the family member went to the restroom was held to be a "keeper" of the dog and therefore was barred from recovery under the statute. Marin v. Frick, 2004 -Ohio- 5642 (Ohio App. Dist.11 10/22/2004).

A trailer park owner who had a rule that residents could only have one dog was not liable to the victim of a dog bite from a dog owned by a resident who had two dogs, because the trailer park owner was not an owner, keeper or harborer of the dog or of the trailer where the accident happened, and the violation of the one-dog rule did not of itself establish liability. Burgess v. Tackas, 125 Ohio App.3d 294, (Ohio App. 01/20/1998). Allowing the dog onto the common areas, however, would be considered "harboring" and could lead to liability. Flint v. Holbrook (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 21, 25, 608 N.E.2d 809, 812.

Other issues arise because the statute reaches not only owners but also harborers and keepers. The fact that the victim lived in the house with the dog and the dog owner usually is relevant to the issue of insurance coverage, in that a resident usually cannot bring a claim against a homeowner or renter policy. However, in Bowman v. Stott (Ohio App. Ninth Dist., Summit, 12-31-2003) Number 21568, 2003-Ohio-7182, 2003 WL 23094923, the defendant dog owner attempted to use the victim's residency to defeat liability under the dog bite statute.

R.C. 955.28(B) imposes strict liability on one who owns, keeps, or harbors a dog for an injury to person or property, which is caused by the dog, unless certain exceptions apply. Ohio courts have ruled that a "harborer" is a person who has possession and control of the premises where the dog lives, and silently acquiesces to the dog's presence. The argument in this case was that the victim lived with the dog owner, and therefore was a harborer and unable to establish liability under the statute.

The defendant asserted that both he and the victim were "in possession and control" of the premises, and that the latter lived at the premises with the dog from the day the dog owner brought the dog into the home until the dog bit her. The victim submitted that she never took care of or interacted with the dog, that the dog was kept in a cage because the victim was afraid of the animal, that she repeatedly asked the owner to get rid of the dog, that she asked the dog warden to remove the dog, and that she told the owner of an earlier dog bite to another person and of the dog's vicious tendencies. On the basis of that evidence, the court of appeals held that the victim was entitled to take the case to trial, and that the dog owner was not entitled to summary judgment.

Assumption of the risk

Ohio's dog bite statute establishes an owner's liability without regard to the owner's negligence, and sets forth specific exceptions to that liability. Because of the statute's specificity,
assumption of the risk is not a permissible defense to an action for a dog bite brought pursuant to R.C. 955.28. Pulley v. Malek, 25 Ohio St.3d 95, 495 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio 07/23/1986); see also Quellos v. Quellos (Ohio Ct. App. 1994), 643 N.E.2d 1173.

Text of the Ohio dog bite statute

Ohio Revised Codes, § 955.28 Dog may be killed for certain acts; owner liable for damages.

(A) Subject to divisions (A)(2) and (3) of section 955.261 [955.26.1] of the Revised Code, a dog that is chasing or approaching in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, that attempts to bite or otherwise endanger, or that kills or injures a person or a dog that chases, injures, or kills livestock, poultry, other domestic animal, or other animal, that is the property of another person, except a cat or another dog, can be killed at the time of that chasing, approaching, attempt, killing, or injury. If, in attempting to kill such a dog, a person wounds it, he is not liable to prosecution under the penal laws which punish cruelty to animals. 

(B) The owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog is liable in damages for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that is caused by the dog, unless the injury, death, or loss was caused to the person or property of an individual who, at the time, was committing or attempting to commit a trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner, keeper, or harborer, or was committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense against any person, or was teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog on the owner's, keeper's, or harborer's property. 

Update on laws regulating pit bulls in this State

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in July 2007 that a Toledo city ordinance that restricts and regulates the ownership of pit bull dogs does not violate the constitutional rights of dog owners.

The majority of the court relied heavily upon a number of verified, negative facts about pit bulls that were proved in the trial court. The dissenting judge gave her approval to the ordinance but said that the overwhelming evidence should lead to law enforcement activity against dog owners who make their dogs more violent.

The court's majority opinion stated there is "substantial evidence" that:

"[P]it bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that: (1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs; (2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog; (3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined; (4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed.... The evidence presented in the trial court supports the conclusion that pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety of citizens. The state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the danger posed by this breed of domestic dogs."

Justice Maureen O'Connor concurred in judgment only, and entered a separate opinion expressing her "disapproval" of the provision of state law classifying all pit bulls as "vicious dogs." She wrote that data cited by the trial court regarding pit bull attacks did not reflect inherent violent characteristics of the breed but rather arose from deliberate efforts by some owners, including drug dealers, to increase a dog's aggression and lethalness through abuse or aberrant training.

"Almost all domestic animals can cause significant injuries to humans, and it is proper to require that all domestic animals be maintained and controlled. Laws to that effect are eminently reasonable for the safety of citizens and of the animal," wrote Justice O'Connor. "Because the danger posed by vicious dogs and pit bulls arises from the owner's failure to safely control the animal, rational legislation should focus on the owner of the dog rather than the specific breed that is owned."

To read the court's comprehensive press release, click here. To download the entire opinion by the court, click here.