Dog Bite Liability Explained

Summary

In Ohio, dog owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs, regardless of the dogs past behavior. Lulu must prove the dog caused her injury, she wasnt trespassing, and didnt provoke the dog. Annie may have claims against the Franklins for negligence or nuisance due to their pond flooding her yard. The Franklins might defend themselves by citing an Act of God or arguing that Annies landscaping was unusually sensitive.

Full Conversation

Bart owns a Rottweiler named Mac. Bart is aware that Rottweilers are characterized as an aggressive breed and so he normally keeps Mac confined in his backyard surrounded by a five-foot fence. While Bart was walking Mac one day, the dog jumped up on Bart's neighbor, Lulu, who was passing by. Mac bit Lulu on the arm and seriously injured her. Lulu later admitted that she called the dog over to her when she saw Bart walking him. Lulu may have an actionable claim against Bart based on the theory of: Product liability Intentional misrepresentation Strict liability None of the answers is correct.
Lulu may have an actionable claim against Bart based on the theory of:
- Strict Liability: Ohio law holds dog owners strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog, regardless of the dog's previous behavior or the owner's knowledge of the dog's aggressiveness.
Would you like more information on how Lulu might pursue this claim or on defenses Bart might have?
Bart owns a Rottweiler named Mac. Bart is aware that Rottweilers are characterized as an aggressive breed and so he normally keeps Mac confined in his backyard surrounded by a five-foot fence. While Bart was walking Mac one day, the dog jumped up on Bart's neighbor, Lulu, who was passing by. Mac bit Lulu on the arm and seriously injured her. Lulu later admitted that she called the dog over to her when she saw Bart walking him. In order to prove strict liability, what must Lulu show? Bart was or should have been aware of the dog’s vicious propensities Bart’s negligence in walking the dog Bart’s intent to harm None of the answers is correct.
To prove strict liability in Ohio, Lulu must show:
- The dog caused the injury.
- She was not trespassing or committing a crime.
- She did not provoke the dog.
Would you like details on potential defenses Bart might have?
Bart owns a Rottweiler named Mac. Bart is aware that Rottweilers are characterized as an aggressive breed and so he normally keeps Mac confined in his backyard surrounded by a five-foot fence. While Bart was walking Mac one day, the dog jumped up on Bart's neighbor, Lulu, who was passing by. Mac bit Lulu on the arm and seriously injured her. Lulu later admitted that she called the dog over to her when she saw Bart walking him. In order to prove strict liability, what must Lulu show? Bart was or should have been aware of the dog’s vicious propensities Bart’s negligence in walking the dog Bart’s intent to harm None of the answers is correct.
To prove strict liability in Ohio, Lulu must show:
- Bart owned the dog.
- The dog caused the injury.
- Lulu was not trespassing or committing a crime.
Would you like more information on how to proceed with this claim?
Case Study Annie lives in the city and owns a home with a small yard. Annie has put a lot of time and hard work into turning her little yard into an English cottage garden filled with perennial flowers, flagstone walkways, and vine-covered arbors. The Franklins moved into the house next to Annie's. They have a large yard and a large landscaping budget. The Franklins hauled in tons of dirt to build a berm separating their property from Annie's so they could put in a quarter-acre pond. In the spring after the Franklins put in their pond, the area was hit with torrential rains, which caused the pond to overflow its berm and flood Annie's yard. All of Annie's landscaping was lost. Annie may have an actionable claim against the Franklins on the grounds that their pond is: An act of negligence An abnormally dangerous activity A nuisance None of the answers is correct.
Annie may have an actionable claim against the Franklins based on:
- Negligence: The Franklins may have failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the pond from overflowing.
- Nuisance: The pond overflow caused substantial and unreasonable interference with Annie's enjoyment of her property.
Would you like more information on how to proceed with these claims?
Read the case study and then answer the questions that follow. Case Study Annie lives in the city and owns a home with a small yard. Annie has put a lot of time and hard work into turning her little yard into an English cottage garden filled with perennial flowers, flagstone walkways, and vine-covered arbors. The Franklins moved into the house next to Annie's. They have a large yard and a large landscaping budget. The Franklins hauled in tons of dirt to build a berm separating their property from Annie's so they could put in a quarter-acre pond. In the spring after the Franklins put in their pond, the area was hit with torrential rains, which caused the pond to overflow its berm and flood Annie's yard. All of Annie's landscaping was lost. The court will impose liability for a greater range of harm if it finds that Annie's claim involves strict liability rather than negligence. a. True b. False
True. Strict liability would likely impose liability for a wider range of harm as it does not require proof of negligence, only that the activity caused the harm.
Do you need more information on how Annie can proceed with her claim?
Case Study Annie lives in the city and owns a home with a small yard. Annie has put a lot of time and hard work into turning her little yard into an English cottage garden filled with perennial flowers, flagstone walkways, and vine-covered arbors. The Franklins moved into the house next to Annie's. They have a large yard and a large landscaping budget. The Franklins hauled in tons of dirt to build a berm separating their property from Annie's so they could put in a quarter-acre pond. In the spring after the Franklins put in their pond, the area was hit with torrential rains, which caused the pond to overflow its berm and flood Annie's yard. All of Annie's landscaping was lost. Annie is more likely to prevail in her action against the Franklins because she and the Franklins live in the city as opposed to a rural area. a. True b. False
The statement is False. Annie's likelihood of prevailing in her action against the Franklins is not necessarily influenced by whether they live in a city or rural area. The key factors are whether the Franklins were negligent or created a nuisance.
Would you like more information on how to proceed with a negligence or nuisance claim?
Annie lives in the city and owns a home with a small yard. Annie has put a lot of time and hard work into turning her little yard into an English cottage garden filled with perennial flowers, flagstone walkways, and vine-covered arbors. The Franklins moved into the house next to Annie's. They have a large yard and a large landscaping budget. The Franklins hauled in tons of dirt to build a berm separating their property from Annie's so they could put in a quarter-acre pond. In the spring after the Franklins put in their pond, the area was hit with torrential rains, which caused the pond to overflow its berm and flood Annie's yard. All of Annie's landscaping was lost. Defenses the Franklins might assert include: Act of God Right to enjoy their property No intention to do harm None of the answers is correct.
The Franklins might assert the following defenses:
- Act of God: The torrential rains were an unforeseeable natural event.
- Right to enjoy their property: They have the right to make improvements to their property.
- No intention to do harm: They did not intentionally cause the flooding.
Would you like more information on how Annie can pursue her claim?
Case Study Annie lives in the city and owns a home with a small yard. Annie has put a lot of time and hard work into turning her little yard into an English cottage garden filled with perennial flowers, flagstone walkways, and vine-covered arbors. The Franklins moved into the house next to Annie's. They have a large yard and a large landscaping budget. The Franklins hauled in tons of dirt to build a berm separating their property from Annie's so they could put in a quarter-acre pond. In the spring after the Franklins put in their pond, the area was hit with torrential rains, which caused the pond to overflow its berm and flood Annie's yard. All of Annie's landscaping was lost. If the Franklins assert the defense they should not be held liable because Annie's landscaping was abnormally sensitive to damage as compared to a standard grass lawn, they would be arguing: Assumption of risk Proximate cause Mitigating liability None of the answers is correct
The Franklins would be arguing Mitigating liability by claiming Annie's landscaping was abnormally sensitive compared to a standard lawn.
Would you like more information on how Annie can counter this defense?