(A) The owner or keeper of an animal described in section 951.02 of the Revised Code, who negligently permits it to run at large in violation of that section, is liable for all damages resulting from injury, death, or loss to person or property caused by the animal in any of the places specified in section 951.02 of the Revised Code or upon the premises of another without reference to the fence that may enclose the premises.
(B) The running at large of any animal specified in section 951.02 of the Revised Code in or upon any of the places specified in that section is prima-facie evidence in a civil action for damages under division (A) of this section that the owner or keeper of the animal negligently permitted the animal to run at large in violation of section 951.02 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1958–2018 · leading case: Burnett v. Rice, 529 N.E.2d 203 (Ohio 1988).
Burnett v. Rice, 529 N.E.2d 203 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 3ד) R.C. 951.10 further provides: “The owner or keeper of an animal described in section[s] 951.”
Rayner v. Lowe, 572 N.E.2d 245 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1989). · cites it 7דR.C. 951.10 states: “The owner or keeper of an animal described in sections 951.”
Bundy v. Five Rivers Metroparks, 787 N.E.2d 1281 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2003). “Appellants note that R.C. 951.10 provides civil liability for all damages caused by a violation of R.”
White v. Elias, 2012-Ohio-3814. “{¶19} R.C. 951.10 provided that [t]he owner or keeper of an animal described in section 951.”
State v. Riegel, 2012-Ohio-4517. · cites it 3ד2011-36), maintains the first paragraph of the statute as in the previous version (with the exception of the addition of “bison,” “llamas,” and “alpacas,” and two minor grammatical changes), but the second paragraph was deleted in its entirety, revised, and inserted into R.C.…”
Dungan v. Hart, 159 N.E.2d 903 (Ohio Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 2ד, 68 ), was strengthened by the provision of a cognate section of the Code, now Section 951.10, Revised Code. Judge Summers, in the opinion of Marsh v.”
Sanders v. Frank, 2015-Ohio-3644. · cites it 2ד] The trial court committed prejudicial error by applying comparative negligence/assumption of the risk against plaintiff-appellant in favor of defendant- appellee, contrary to R.C. 951.10(A), which provides that negligent horse owners are responsible for all damages caused by…”
Sims v. Coley, 2018-Ohio-3703. “” Furthermore, R.C. 951.10(B) states as follows: “The running at large of any animal specified in section 951.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 951.10(A): 1 case
Sanders v. Frank, 2015-Ohio-3644. “] The trial court committed prejudicial error by applying comparative negligence/assumption of the risk against plaintiff-appellant in favor of defendant- appellee, contrary to R.C. 951.10(A), which provides that negligent horse owners are responsible for all damages caused by…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 951.10(B): 1 case
Sims v. Coley, 2018-Ohio-3703. “” Furthermore, R.C. 951.10(B) states as follows: “The running at large of any animal specified in section 951.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.