Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 955 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 955.28 (2026)

Dog may be killed for certain acts - owner liable for damages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 30, 2008
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 71 - 127th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Subject to divisions (A)(2) and (3) of section 955.261 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, threatens, harasses, 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, threatening, harassment, approaching, attempt, killing, or injury. If, in attempting to kill such a dog, a person wounds it, the person is not liable to prosecution under the penal laws that punish cruelty to animals. Nothing in this section precludes a law enforcement officer from killing a dog that attacks a police dog as defined in section 2921.321 of the Revised Code.

(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 criminal trespass or another criminal offense other than a minor misdemeanor on the property of the owner, keeper, or harborer, or was committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense other than a minor misdemeanor against any person, or was teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog on the owner's, keeper's, or harborer's property. Additionally, 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 if the injury, death, or loss was caused to the person or property of an individual who, at the time of the injury, death, or loss, was on the property of the owner, keeper, or harborer solely for the purpose of engaging in door-to-door sales or other solicitations regardless of whether the individual was in compliance with any requirement to obtain a permit or license to engage in door-to-door sales or other solicitations established by the political subdivision in which the property of the owner, keeper, or harborer is located, provided that the person was not committing a criminal offense other than a minor misdemeanor or was not teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 86 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Beckett v. Warren, 2010 Ohio 4 (Ohio 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beckett v. Warren, 2010 Ohio 4 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 28× “2008-2106 — Submitted September 30, 2009 — Decided January 6, 2010.) APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No.”
Khamis v. Everson, 623 N.E.2d 683 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 23× “On appeal, appellant does not challenge the trial court’s finding that appellant was a “keeper” within the meaning of R.C. 955.28. The only question that appellant presents for us on this appeal is set forth in his one assignment of error: “The trial court erred in granting…”
Jamison v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2014 Ohio 4906 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 28× “JAMISON’S INJURIES UNDER R.C. 955.28 AND ADDITIONALLY FAILED TO ADDRESS THE CONFLICT WHICH EXISTS BETWEEN R.”
Jones v. Holmes, 2013 Ohio 448 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 12× “The trial court found that Moon was strictly liable for Jones' injuries under R.C. 955.28 because he (Moon) was the sole owner of the pit bull.”
Johnson v. Allonas, 688 N.E.2d 549 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 15× “On appeal, appellant presents only one assignment of error: “The trial court erred in granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion for summary judgment since R.C. 955.28 applies to a ‘keeper’ of the dog and Viola Pargeon Johnson is a person the statute is intended to protect.”
Callaway v. The Akron Police Dept., 2021 Ohio 4412 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 15× “Callaway’s position that R.C. 955.28 expressly imposes liability upon the City and Officer Orrand such that they are not entitled to immunity.”
Williams v. Buchner, 2023 Ohio 1293 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 15× “The complaint included both a statutory claim under R.C. 955.28 and a common-law claim against Darin Michael Buchner, who is the dog’s owner, and Michael Paul Seeley, who was Buchner’s landlord and the owner of the duplex home where Buchner and the dog resided.”
Garrard v. McComas, 450 N.E.2d 730 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 8× “Plaintiffs commenced this action against defendants McComas and Spanner, alleging that the negligence of each caused the attack and that they were also strictly liable by statute pursuant to R.C. 955.28. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants.”
Ward v. Humble, 2022 Ohio 3258 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 10× “The Wards contend that the trial court erred in finding as a matter of law that Faler was not liable to the Wards under R.C. 955.28 or at common law for the injuries they sustained from a dog owned by one of Faler’s tenants.”
Pulley v. Malek, 495 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio 1986). · cites it 9× “However, there is nothing in R.C. 955.28 which requires a defendant in a dog bite case to prove malicious intent on the part of the plaintiff in order to escape liability.”
E.F. v. Seymour, 2018 Ohio 3946 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “{¶ 16} "A plaintiff who suffers injury as a result of a dog bite may, in the same case, pursue both a strict liability claim under R.C. 955.28, and a common law negligence claim.”
Darfus v. Clark, 2013 Ohio 563 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 18× “{¶31} The statutory cause of action arises under R.C. 955.28, which provides: 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…”
Show all 86 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.28(A) — 1 case
State v. Hall, 2018 Ohio 2335 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.28(B) — 52 cases
Jamison v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2014 Ohio 4906 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “JAMISON’S INJURIES UNDER R.C. 955.28 AND ADDITIONALLY FAILED TO ADDRESS THE CONFLICT WHICH EXISTS BETWEEN R.”
Khamis v. Everson, 623 N.E.2d 683 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “On appeal, appellant does not challenge the trial court’s finding that appellant was a “keeper” within the meaning of R.C. 955.28. The only question that appellant presents for us on this appeal is set forth in his one assignment of error: “The trial court erred in granting…”
Callaway v. The Akron Police Dept., 2021 Ohio 4412 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “Callaway’s position that R.C. 955.28 expressly imposes liability upon the City and Officer Orrand such that they are not entitled to immunity.”
Johnson v. Allonas, 688 N.E.2d 549 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). “On appeal, appellant presents only one assignment of error: “The trial court erred in granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion for summary judgment since R.C. 955.28 applies to a ‘keeper’ of the dog and Viola Pargeon Johnson is a person the statute is intended to protect.”
Quellos v. Quellos, 643 N.E.2d 1173 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994).
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.