About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

13 Ohio Law. 15 (1999)
Dogged Liability - Determining Liability in Dog Bite Cases

handle is hein.journals/ohiolawr13 and id is 211 raw text is: Dogged liability Determining liability in dog bite cases by TerrenceJ. Kenneally Annually, nearly 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs in the United States, 800,000 of them requiring some form of medical treatment. Incidence rates for children, especially boys under 9, are higher than any other age group.' According to the Centers For Disease Control and Preven- tion, one-half of all children in this country are bitten by a dog before their 12th birthday.' These incidences frequently give rise to claims being made by the person bitten against the owner of the dog. The number of claims and the indemnity dollars paid out have steadily risen. For instance, State Farm Insur- ance Company, the nation's largest home insurer, handled 10,000 dog bite claims in 1993, paying out almost $47 million. Those figures grew to 14,000 claims and $80 million in indemnity dollars paid out in 1997. On an industry-wide basis, the Insurance Information Institute indicates that property/casualty insurance companies each year pay out roughly $250 million in dog bite claims, Many of these claims are brought by personal injury lawyers and defended by lawyers hired by homeowner insurance carriers. There has been a dearth of articles dealing with the subject of liability for injuries caused by dogs for the practitioner in Ohio.) It is hoped that this article will help fill the void. Two causes of action There are tvo causes of action in Ohio for injuries caused by dogs: common law negligence and statutory. An injured plaintiff can proceed under either or both of these forms of actions.' However, if the case goes to trial, the plaintiff must elect to proceed tinder one or the other, but not both.6 To allow a plaintiff to proceed under both causes of action runs the risk of introducing evidence to one cause of action that would be inad- missible in the other. Common law negligence actions Under the common law form of action, the owner or keeper of a dog must have knowledge, or scienter, of the dog's vicious propensities before the person can be held liable for injuries caused by the dog. Vicious propensi- ties include instonces where the animal has bitten or caused injury before.' The gist of the rule is whether the owner or keeper knew that the dog was dangerous. If an owner or keeper knows of some trait or propensity of the dog and doesn't prevent an injury from occurring, then the owner or keeper can be held responsible for the dog's actions. Under this rule, then, a plaintiff must prove that the owner/keeper knew that the dog was likely to cause harm to someone. In that event, an argument can be made that a dog that growls or charges, or in general exhibits a threatening appearance, even if it has never caused injury, may pose a risk to people such that the owner (2ohinmed on page 16' TERRENCE J. KENNEALLY IS AN INSURANCE DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN ROCKY RIVER, N () VI XI [IL B / 1)1' C F 1\ 131 13 1 ()9(J 10l 11, 10 L Ail W i YE R X 0 N' E M' B E 1 / 1) E C:E N1Bf'ERI ( 1 ) M

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most