What’s Defined in Avery’s Law?

The law establishes new definitions for dogs that have committed acts causing harm to other dogs or people. A “vicious dog act” will be defined as an act done by a dog without provocation, resulting in the death of a person or serious injury. A “dangerous dog act” will be defined as causing injury other than killing or serious injury by physical contact, or serious injury even without physical contact, or the serious injury resulting in euthanasia or killing of another dog. A “nuisance dog act” will be defined as a variety of behaviors including chasing or menacing a person, attempting to bite or attack a person, causing injury to a person, or chasing other dogs or livestock in apparent attitude of attack.

Having established new standards for dog behavior, the new law requires owners of a “dangerous” or “vicious” dog which has acted in the manner set forth above (but not a “nuisance” dog) to register the dog with the auditor in their counties of residence and imposes numerous new annual requirements with the registration including:

• Providing proof of a rabies vaccine;
• Requiring the dog to be spayed or neutered or producing a statement from a licensed veterinarian that neutering or spaying is medically contraindicated;
• Requiring posting of visible signs warning of the presence of a dangerous dog on the property;
• Requiring dogs to wear a tag identifying them as dangerous or vicious;
• Requiring microchipping of the dog.[1]

The new law also imposes a new requirement that owners, harborers, or keepers of vicious or dangerous dogs obtain and maintain liability insurance in an amount of at least $100,000. Failure to comply with these requirements is a new criminal offense. Interestingly, some homeowners insurance policies specifically exclude insurance coverage for some types and breeds of dogs.

The new statute also requires that no owner, harborer, or keeper of any dog shall fail to keep the dog physically confined or restrained on the owner, harborer, or keeper’s premises by leash, tether, fence, supervision or secure enclosure or otherwise under reasonable control.[2] Failure to do so is now a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment upon multiple offenses. Courts will also now be able to require dogs to undergo obedience training or to be euthanized if they cause serious injury or death to a person.

The new law, at the same time, also includes protections for owners, keepers, and harborers of dogs that are legitimately defending themselves, their owners, or their property.

Potential Outcomes and Changes Within Dog Attack Law

While it is not anticipated that the new law will have major impacts for the civil liability of dog owners, it provides local officials with tools to better manage dangerous and vicious dogs. It now imposes criminal liability and insurance requirements where none existed previously. The statutory determinations of vicious, dangerous, and nuisance will likely be tested in court hearings subject to ordinary due process standards.

Importantly, the law does not make any changes to the existing dog attack liability statute.[3] Under existing law, owners, keepers, or harborers of dogs are generally legally liable for any harm caused by the dog so long as the victim was not trespassing, teasing, or tormenting the dog.

Previously, Ohio law limited or restricted the admissibility of certain facts in tort lawsuits. Avery’s Law does not contain any such restrictions on the admissibility of the new definitions of vicious, dangerous, or nuisance. Thus, if a dog that has been previously adjudicated under Avery’s Law goes on to commit further harm against others, its status is likely admissible in a subsequent suit.

Avery’s experience and other notable cases[4] evidenced that Ohio’s dog-regulation scheme previously left gaps that allowed harm to befall those who were victimized by dangerous dogs. Avery’s Law helps to increase responsibility burdens on owners of vicious and dangerous dogs and closes many of these loopholes. The criminal deterrence aspect will also hopefully increase the safety of Ohioans from dangerous and vicious dogs.

How Can We Help?

McCarthy Lebit attorneys Colin Ray and Christian Patno regularly represent individuals who have been severely injured by dogs through no fault of their own. Those who have been injured or have questions about the new law may call Colin for a free, no-obligation consultation to discuss their legal options.

For more information, or to seek counsel from our Personal Injury & Wrongful Death group, please reach out to request a consultation or call us at 216-696-1422.

_____________________________________________

[1] R.C. 955.01.
[2]  R.C. 955.21.
[3] R.C. 955.28.
[4] Schneider v. Kumpf, 2016-Ohio-5161 (2d Dist.).

_____

This information is provided for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers should consult with qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances before taking any action based on the information presented.

The post Avery’s Law Brings Significant Changes to Ohio’s Dog Laws appeared first on McCarthy Lebit - A Cleveland/Ohio Law Firm.

The advent of spring typically means that many dog owners will begin enjoying the warmer Cleveland weather by taking their canine friends on longer walks, bringing them along to dog-friendly bars and restaurants, or exposing them to interactions with friends who have come over for cookouts. Unfortunately, with the rise of more human-to-dog contact, the warmer months also usually see an increase in the number of bites and attacks by dogs. Dogs, and larger dogs in particular, often cause injury to others, leading to medical care, treatment, and sometimes long-lasting harm like scarring or orthopedic injury. The question then arises: who is legally responsible for injuries caused by dog attacks?

Since most dogs never harm anyone, dog owners may be surprised to learn that under the Ohio Revised Code,[1] the owner, keeper, and/or harborer of a dog is generally strictly liable for harm caused by the dog. The law does not require that the dog bite or attack another person; any type of damage it causes can result in liability. Exceptions precluding legal responsibility exist in cases where another person was trespassing, teasing, or tormenting a dog at the time the dog caused harm. However, typically, the owner or person keeping or harboring the dog is responsible.

Unfortunately, when a large or aggressive dog does attack someone, the victim’s medical bills can pile up quickly, creating a difficult situation. Many homeowner’s and renter’s insurance policies provide coverage for harm caused by dogs, so long as the dog owner disclosed that they had a dog at the time of applying for coverage. What many dog owners fail to realize is that many insurance policies contain specific exclusions from coverage for harm caused by certain breeds of dogs or dogs that have previously bitten a person. This can lead to a very serious situation where a dog owner is legally liable for substantial medical bills caused by the dog but has no insurance coverage for them or the claim.

In a recent Ohio case, a homeowner’s policy excluded coverage for bodily injury caused by “full or partial breed Dobermans, German Shepherds, Pit Bulls, Chows, Akitas and Rottweilers or any other dog or dogs, regardless of breed, that have been involved in past human biting incident.”[2] After a Rottweiler mix attacked two people and an insurance claim was brought, the insurance company filed an action in court for declaratory judgment declaring that it had no duty to provide coverage. The court upheld this exclusion and ruled that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the owner of the Rottweiler. Other similar policy exclusions apply to other breeds, such as Presa Canarios, Great Danes, or Chihuahuas. They may also exclude dogs over a certain weight, wolves, coyotes, hybrids of such animals, or any dogs used for fighting.

In another case, a policy exclusion denied coverage for a dog that “[h]as previously caused: (1) Bodily injury to a person.”[3] The dog had previously nipped people on some five occasions. The court upheld this restriction and ruled that there was no duty for the insurance company to provide coverage.

Accordingly, it is prudent for dog owners, keepers, and/or harborers to review their insurance policies to ensure coverage is available for their dogs in case they cause injuries, and I strongly recommend it. This is particularly important where:

1. A policy is new or has not been reviewed for a period of years, if the policy language has changed;
2. If a dog has bitten a person during the previous year, even if the injury caused was not severe;
3. If a person has obtained any new dog, particularly if it is large or a working dog of any sort whose breed may be one of the types that are mentioned in a policy exclusion such as a Rottweiler or Pit Bull;
4. If the person is not the owner of a dog but can be deemed a harborer or keeper by having the dog on their property or by helping care for or keep the dog around the time of the bite or attack.

If a dog bites someone or causes harm and coverage is denied, dog owners, keepers, and/or harborers who find themselves without insurance coverage can be in a very difficult position where they are still legally liable for the harm but have no paid-for defense or insurance indemnity. This can be even more frustrating when payment of insurance premiums has been made with the assumption that there would be coverage in the event of a dog attack.

Attorneys Colin Ray and Chris Patno regularly represent individuals in this legal subspecialty who have been bitten or seriously injured by dogs. They have even set legal standards and beneficial case law in Ohio in this regard. Those injured in a dog attack or those who have questions about a dog attack may contact them for a free, no-obligation consultation. To see counsel from our Personal Injury & Wrongful Death attorneys, please reach out to request a consultation or call us at 216-696-1422.

_____________________________________________

[1] R.C. 955.28.
[2] Garlock v. Jordan, 2025-Ohio-82 ⁋3 (6^th Dist.).
[3] Grange Indem. Ins. Co. v. Hinds, 2023-Ohio-4085 ⁋19 (3^rd Dist.).

_____

This information is provided for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers should consult with qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances before taking any action based on the information presented.

The post Is My Dog Covered by My Homeowner’s or Renter’s Insurance Policy? appeared first on McCarthy Lebit - A Cleveland/Ohio Law Firm.