Ohio Dog Bite Laws Explained (Strict Liability)
Strict Liability
Ohio imposes strict liability on the owner, keeper AND harborer of a dog — a wider set of defendants, and often more insurance policies, than almost any other state.
How Ohio Dog Bite Law Works
If a dog bit you in Ohio, the statute is on your side and it reaches further than most. Ohio Rev. Code § 955.28(B) makes the owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog liable for any injury, death or loss caused by the dog, with no requirement to prove the animal had bitten before or that anyone knew it was dangerous.
Two features of that sentence are worth pausing on. 'Caused by the dog' is broader than 'bitten by' — a knockdown, a fall while backing away, an injury from a dog rushing at you all fall inside the statute where in many states they would drop to a harder negligence claim. And the statute names three categories of defendant rather than one, which frequently means more than one insurance policy is available.
That third category does real work. A keeper is someone with physical care or charge of the dog — a walker, a house-sitter, a household member. A harborer is someone with possession and control of the premises where the dog lives who silently permits it there, which can reach a landlord. Where an owner has no coverage, establishing who else falls within § 955.28(B) is often what makes a claim viable.
The counterweight is Ohio's damages cap. Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.18 limits non-economic damages in most tort actions, which compresses mid-range claims relative to uncapped states like Arizona, New York and Pennsylvania. The cap lifts where the injury amounts to permanent and substantial physical deformity — a threshold serious bite injuries can meet — so how the injury is medically characterised has outsized influence on value here.
Ohio's dangerous dog framework also changed recently. Avery's Law, House Bill 247, took effect in March 2026 and replaced the old classification scheme with behaviour-based nuisance, dangerous and vicious tiers. Owners of dangerous or vicious dogs must now carry at least $100,000 in liability insurance, which can be a source of coverage separate from any homeowners policy.
Fees are contingency, nothing upfront, commonly around a third of any recovery, with typically nothing owed if there is no recovery. Where an Ohio attorney earns it is usually in identifying every potentially liable party and in building the medical record that determines whether the damages cap applies.
Some bites do not need a lawyer — minor injury, clear liability, cooperative insurer. What tends to change it: any injury that might meet the permanent deformity threshold, a child victim, a denied claim, an argument that you were teasing the dog or trespassing, or an owner with no insurance, since that is precisely where Ohio's keeper and harborer categories become valuable.
The evidence that decides an Ohio claim: photographs of the wound over time and after healing, the county dog warden's file including any prior classification, the identity of everyone who had care of the dog or controlled the premises, the owner's and any keeper's insurance details, witness contacts, and complete medical records — particularly any specialist assessment of permanent scarring or loss of function.
| Liability rule | Strict liability by statute, reaching the owner, keeper or harborer — a notably wider set of defendants than most states — with three statutory exceptions and a parallel common-law claim. |
|---|---|
| Governing statute | Liability for damage or injury caused by dogOhio Rev. Code § 955.28(B) |
| Deadline to file | 2 years from the date of the biteOhio Rev. Code § 2305.10 |
| If the victim is a child | Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.16 tolls the limitations period during minority, so the two years generally begins when the child turns 18. |
| Shared fault | Modified comparative negligence (51% bar)Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.33 |
| Cap on pain & suffering | Yes. Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.18 caps non-economic damages in most tort actions at the greater of $250,000 or three times economic damages, subject to an overall ceiling — with exceptions for permanent and substantial physical deformity or loss of a limb or organ system, which severe dog bite injuries can meet. |
| Does breed matter? | Ohio removed pit bulls from its statutory definition of a vicious dog in 2012, so state law is breed-neutral. Ohio does not preempt local breed-specific ordinances, and a number of municipalities retain them. |
| Dangerous dog law | Ohio Rev. Code §§ 955.11, 955.22 (nuisance, dangerous and vicious dogs), as amended by Avery's Law (H.B. 247, effective March 2026) |
Statute text verified against the official source linked above. General information, not legal advice.
What Ohio Rev. Code § 955.28(B) Says
Ohio imposes strict liability for any injury, death or loss caused by a dog, with no requirement to show the dog had bitten before or that anyone knew it was dangerous. Three statutory exceptions apply, and they are the whole of the defence.
The operative provision reads that 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, subject to three exceptions. Note the breadth of the trigger: 'caused by the dog' is wider than 'bitten by', so a knockdown, a chase that ends in a fall, or an injury from a dog rushing at someone all fall inside the statute where in many states they would not.
A separate common-law action survives alongside the statute and is sometimes pleaded in addition, particularly where punitive damages are sought — punitive damages are not available on the statutory claim alone.
Owner, Keeper, or Harborer: Ohio Reaches Further Than Most States
Ohio imposes liability on three categories of defendant, not one. A keeper is someone with physical care or charge of the dog; a harborer is someone with possession and control of the premises where the dog lives who silently permits it there.
This is the most practically valuable feature of Ohio law for someone who has been bitten, and it is frequently overlooked. The statute does not say 'owner'. It says owner, keeper, or harborer, and Ohio courts have given each term independent meaning.
A dog walker, a house-sitter, a friend minding the dog for a weekend, a partner living in the home — any of them can be a keeper and liable in their own right. A landlord who permits a tenant's dog in a common area can be a harborer. In each case that is a separate defendant with potentially a separate insurance policy, which can matter enormously where the owner's own coverage is inadequate or non-existent.
For anyone investigating a claim, the practical instruction is to establish not just who owns the dog but who had care of it at the time and who controls the premises where it lives. Those three answers are often three different people.
The Three Statutory Exceptions
Liability does not attach where the injured person was committing or attempting criminal trespass or another criminal offence above a minor misdemeanour on the property, was committing such an offence against any person, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog on the owner’s, keeper’s or harborer’s property.
The exceptions are exhaustive — if none applies, the statute imposes liability. The criminal trespass exception requires actual criminal trespass rather than mere presence without an express invitation, and the offence must be more than a minor misdemeanour.
The teasing exception contains a limit that is easy to miss and worth reading carefully. By the statute's terms it applies to teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog on the owner's, keeper's or harborer's property. A bite in a public street or park does not obviously fall within it, which is a meaningful distinction where an insurer wants to argue that something you did set the dog off.
Avery’s Law and Ohio’s New Classification System
House Bill 247, known as Avery’s Law, took effect in March 2026. It restructured Ohio’s dog classifications into nuisance, dangerous and vicious tiers based on behaviour, and requires owners of dangerous or vicious dogs to carry at least $100,000 in liability insurance.
The law is named for Avery Russell, an eleven-year-old from Reynoldsburg seriously injured in an unprovoked attack in 2024. It was signed in December 2025 and took effect the following March. Alongside the three-tier classification system, it gave dog wardens immediate seizure authority following an unprovoked attack causing serious injury, and requires euthanasia of dogs that seriously injure or kill a person in an unprovoked attack.
Two provisions matter directly to someone who has been bitten. The $100,000 insurance requirement for dangerous and vicious dogs can create a dedicated source of coverage that would not otherwise exist — worth identifying where the dog had been classified before it bit you. And the new reporting duties, which require healthcare providers and veterinarians to report bites within 24 hours and local health boards to file annual reports, generate documentation that did not previously exist.
The classification tiers themselves turn on behaviour rather than breed, continuing the direction Ohio took when it removed pit bulls from the statutory vicious dog definition in 2012.
Ohio Caps Pain and Suffering — With an Important Exception
Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.18 limits non-economic damages in most tort actions to the greater of $250,000 or three times economic damages, subject to an overall ceiling. The cap does not apply where the injury involves permanent and substantial physical deformity.
This is the feature that most compresses Ohio claim values relative to uncapped states like Arizona, New York and Pennsylvania. For a mid-range injury — a wound that healed with some scarring, moderate medical bills — the cap frequently binds and sets a practical ceiling on what the claim can be worth.
The exception is where Ohio cases are genuinely won. Section 2315.18 lifts the cap for permanent and substantial physical deformity, or loss of use of a limb or a bodily organ system. Severe dog bite injuries — permanent facial scarring, nerve damage causing loss of function in a hand — can meet that threshold. Whether they do is a medical characterisation question, which is why how a treating physician and any reconstructive surgeon document the injury has outsized influence on Ohio valuation.
Comparative Fault Under § 2315.33
Ohio applies modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar. Damages drop by your share of fault, and a plaintiff whose fault is greater than the combined fault of all defendants recovers nothing.
The comparative fault analysis under § 2315.33 does separate work from the statutory exceptions in § 955.28(B), and the distinction matters. Teasing the dog on the owner's property is a complete statutory bar — liability never attaches. Conduct that falls short of that, such as approaching a dog you had been told to leave alone, is ordinary comparative fault and reduces the award proportionally unless it exceeds the defendants' combined share.
Because Ohio's statute reaches multiple defendants, the combined-fault comparison can work in a plaintiff's favour. Where an owner, a keeper and a harborer all bear some responsibility, a plaintiff's own share is measured against their aggregate rather than against any one of them.
Landlord Liability Through the Harborer Route
Ohio landlords face a distinct exposure most states do not create. A landlord who has possession and control of common areas and silently permits a tenant’s dog there can be a harborer, liable under the statute itself rather than through ordinary negligence.
In most states a landlord claim requires proving the landlord knew the dog was dangerous and could have removed it. In Ohio the harborer analysis can bypass that entirely: the question is possession and control of the premises where the dog was kept, plus acquiescence in the dog being there.
The distinction generally turns on common areas versus the leased unit. A landlord typically does not control the interior of a tenant's apartment, but does control shared hallways, stairwells, courtyards and parking areas — and a bite occurring there is where the harborer theory is strongest.
Wrongful Death After a Fatal Attack
A wrongful death action is brought by the personal representative under Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 2125 for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse, children and parents, generally within two years of the date of death.
Recoverable losses include lost support and services, loss of society and companionship, loss of prospective inheritance, and the mental anguish of the surviving family. Ohio's wrongful death statute compensates loss of companionship more generously than New York's, which focuses on pecuniary loss.
The § 2315.18 cap on non-economic damages does not apply to wrongful death claims, which is a significant structural difference from the treatment of serious non-fatal injuries.
Uninsured Owners — and Why Ohio Gives You More Options
An uninsured owner is less often fatal to an Ohio claim than elsewhere, because the statute reaches keepers and harborers too. A second or third potentially liable party frequently means a second or third policy.
Where the owner has no homeowners or renters coverage, the first question in Ohio should be who else falls within § 955.28(B). The person who was walking the dog, the household member who cares for it, the landlord who permits it in common areas — each may carry insurance the owner does not.
Since March 2026 there is an additional avenue: Avery's Law requires owners of dogs classified dangerous or vicious to carry at least $100,000 in liability coverage specific to the dog. Where a classification predates the bite, that policy may exist independently of any homeowners coverage.
Breed, Local Ordinances, and Insurance
Ohio removed pit bulls from its statutory vicious dog definition in 2012, so state law is behaviour-based. Ohio does not preempt local breed-specific ordinances, and a number of municipalities retain them.
The 2012 change was significant — Ohio had been the only state whose statute designated a specific breed as vicious by definition. Avery's Law continued in that direction, building its three tiers around behaviour rather than appearance.
What Ohio has not done is preempt local government. Municipalities remain free to adopt breed-specific ordinances, so what is lawful varies by city. None of that affects liability under § 955.28, which never turned on breed, but it can determine whether a dog was lawfully kept where it was — and Ohio does not restrict insurers from excluding breeds from coverage.
Deadlines and Political Subdivision Claims
Two years from the date of the bite under Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10, tolled during minority by § 2305.16. Unlike Arizona, Ohio does not run a shorter separate clock on the statutory claim.
Ohio courts have applied the same two-year bodily injury period to both the § 955.28 statutory claim and a parallel common-law action, so there is no trap of the kind that catches Arizona claimants who plead the statute at month fourteen.
Claims against political subdivisions run through Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 2744, which provides broad immunity subject to defined exceptions and sets its own two-year period under § 2744.04. A bite involving a municipal animal control dog, a police K-9, or an incident on government property should be assessed for immunity issues early, because the analysis differs substantially from a claim against a private owner.
Red means the owner's insurer can use it against you. Green means Ohio has closed that argument off.
| Defense | Status | How it works in Ohio |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal trespass or another criminal offense | Available | § 955.28(B) removes liability where the injured person was committing or attempting criminal trespass, or another criminal offense above a minor misdemeanor, on the property — or a criminal offense against any person. |
| Teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog | Available | A complete statutory exception, but a narrow one: by the statute's terms it applies only where the conduct occurred on the owner's, keeper's or harborer's property. |
| Comparative fault above 50% | Available | Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.33 bars recovery where your fault exceeds the combined fault of the defendants. |
| Statutory cap on non-economic damages | Limited | Not a liability defense but a real ceiling. § 2315.18 caps pain and suffering in most tort claims, though the cap lifts for permanent and substantial physical deformity — a category severe bite injuries can fall into. |
| One-bite / no prior viciousness | Not a defense | Not a defense to the statutory claim. § 955.28(B) attaches liability for any injury caused by the dog without regard to its history. |
| "I was not the owner" | Not a defense | Unusually weak in Ohio. The statute reaches the owner, keeper OR harborer, so a landlord, a house-sitter, a partner or anyone else exercising control over the dog or the premises where it lives can be liable. |
| Breed of the dog | Not a defense | Ohio removed breed from its statutory vicious-dog definition in 2012. Local ordinances may still regulate by breed, but that is separate from § 955.28 liability. |
Modified comparative negligence (51% bar). Damages are reduced by your share of fault, and a plaintiff whose fault is greater than the combined fault of all defendants recovers nothing. Ohio's statutory exceptions in § 955.28(B) do separate work from comparative fault — teasing or tormenting the dog on the owner's property removes liability outright rather than merely reducing it.
Example: on a claim otherwise worth $100,000, being found 30% responsible would typically leave about $70,000 — but at 51% or more, Ohio law bars recovery entirely.
Statute of Limitations in Ohio
Ohio gives two years from the date of the bite under Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10, which covers actions for bodily injury. Ohio courts have applied that same two-year period to the statutory claim under § 955.28 and to a parallel common-law action, so unlike Arizona there is no shorter statutory clock waiting to catch a claim that was pleaded late. For a minor, § 2305.16 tolls the limitations period during minority, so the two years generally begins when the child turns 18. A wrongful death claim runs two years from the date of death under Chapter 2125. Claims against political subdivisions are the exception that needs early attention: Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 2744 provides broad governmental immunity subject to defined exceptions and sets its own two-year period under § 2744.04, and the immunity analysis is substantially different from a claim against a private owner. A bite involving a municipal animal control dog, a police K-9 or an incident on government property should be reviewed against Chapter 2744 promptly rather than assumed to follow the ordinary route.
Dog bite law varies more between states than most people expect — the same attack can be a straightforward claim in one state and a difficult one across a state line.
| State | Rule | Statute | Deadline | Shared fault | What stands out |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Ala. Code § 3-6-1 | 2 years | Contributory (any fault bars) | The statute reaches bites on the owner’s property only, and § 3-6-3 cuts the claim to actual expenses where the owner knew nothing about the dog. |
| Alaska dog bite laws | One-bite / negligence | No statute (AS 09.17.010 caps damages) | 2 years | Pure comparative | Non-economic damages capped at $400,000 — or $1,000,000 where the injury is severe permanent disfigurement. |
| Arizona dog bite laws | Strict liability | A.R.S. § 11-1025 | 1 year (statutory) / 2 years (negligence) | Pure comparative | Shortest deadline in the country for the statutory claim; breed cannot be considered by any legal decision-maker. |
| Arkansas dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute (Ark. Code § 5-62-125 criminal) | 3 years | Modified (50% bar) | Recovery is barred at exactly 50 percent fault, not 51 — and a minor’s window runs three years past majority. |
| California dog bite laws | Strict liability | Civ. Code § 3342 | 2 years | Pure comparative | Minor's claim tolled until age 18; cities cannot ban dogs by breed. |
| Colorado dog bite laws | Mixed statute | C.R.S. § 13-21-124 | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | Strict liability reaches economic damages only, and only on serious bodily injury. A posted "Beware of Dog" sign is a complete defense. |
| Connecticut dog bite laws | Strict liability | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357 | 3 years (statutory) / 2 years (negligence) | Modified (51% bar) | Covers any damage a dog does, not just bites. A child under seven is presumed not to have trespassed or teased — the burden shifts to the defendant. |
| Delaware dog bite laws | Strict liability | 16 Del. C. § 3053F | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Animal control is run statewide by Delaware Animal Services rather than by each city — the only state on this site with a single centralised agency. |
| District of Columbia dog bite laws | Mixed statute | D.C. Code §§ 8-1808, 8-1812 | 3 years | Pure contributory — 1% bars all recovery | Letting a dog run at large is evidence of negligence, and lack of knowledge is no excuse — but any contributory fault at all still defeats the claim. |
| Florida dog bite laws | Strict liability | Fla. Stat. § 767.04 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | A posted "Bad Dog" sign is a complete defense — except against a child under 6. |
| Georgia dog bite laws | Mixed statute | O.C.G.A. § 51-2-7 | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | A violated local leash ordinance is by itself sufficient proof of vicious propensity. Fault bar sits at 50%, not 51%. |
| Hawaii dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-9 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | The statute removes the scienter requirement but not the need to prove unreasonable conduct — except for animals dangerous by species or nature, where liability is absolute. |
| Idaho dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute; Idaho Code § 25-2805 (at large) | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | No strict liability statute. Recovery runs on scienter or negligence, and the fault bar sits at 50%, not 51%. |
| Illinois dog bite laws | Strict liability | 510 ILCS 5/16 | 2 years (1 year vs. a local public entity) | Modified (51% bar) | Covers attacks and attempted attacks with no bite, and "owner" includes anyone who keeps, harbors or has custody of the dog. |
| Indiana dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Ind. Code § 15-20-1-3 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Strict liability applies ONLY to people performing a duty imposed by law — mail carriers, meter readers, police. Everyone else gets the one-bite rule. |
| Iowa dog bite laws | Strict liability | Iowa Code § 351.28 | 2 years | Contributory negligence is not a defense | Unusually claimant-friendly: the only statutory defenses are that the victim was committing an unlawful act, or that the dog had rabies. |
| Kansas dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute — common-law scienter | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | No dog bite statute, and the fault bar sits at 50%. Local leash ordinances do most of the practical work in establishing negligence. |
| Kentucky dog bite laws | Strict liability | KRS 258.235(4) | 1 year | Pure comparative | The statutory definition of "owner" is broad enough to make a landlord strictly liable — Maupin v. Tankersley (Ky. 2018). Only one year to file. |
| Louisiana dog bite laws | Strict liability | La. Civ. Code art. 2321 | 2 years (1 year before 1 July 2024) | Pure comparative | A civil-law jurisdiction. Prescription doubled from one year to two on 1 July 2024, and the change applies only to injuries arising after that date. |
| Maine dog bite laws | Mixed statute | 7 M.R.S. § 3961 | 6 years | Modified (50% bar) | The longest filing deadline in the country at six years — but strict liability applies only where the dog injured you OFF the owner's premises. |
| Maryland dog bite laws | Strict liability (at large) + presumption | Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901 | 3 years | Pure contributory (any fault bars) | Breed-neutral since a 2014 legislative reversal of Tracey v. Solesky — but pure contributory negligence stacked on genuine strict liability means any claimant fault, even 1%, can still zero out the claim. |
| Massachusetts dog bite laws | Strict liability (owners and keepers) | MGL c. 140, § 155 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Keeper liability runs against anyone temporarily caring for the dog — boarding kennels, dog walkers, pet sitters — on the same strict liability terms as the owner. Double damages are mandatory (not discretionary) where the owner had prior knowledge. |
| Michigan dog bite laws | Strict liability | MCL 287.351 | 3 years | Modified — bars non-economic damages only | Over 50% fault removes pain and suffering but not medical bills. Provocation is judged objectively, so an accidental act can count. |
| Minnesota dog bite laws | Strict liability | Minn. Stat. § 347.22 | 6 years | Modified (51% bar) | Six-year filing deadline — the longest of any strict liability state on this site. The statute covers any "attack or injury," not only bites, giving full protection to victims knocked down or injured by large dogs without being bitten. |
| Mississippi dog bite laws | One-bite rule | Miss. Code § 15-1-49 (no civil bite statute) | 3 years | Pure comparative | Mississippi is one of very few states with no civil dog bite statute — claims run on common law, requiring proof the owner knew the dog was dangerous before the attack. Mississippi's pure comparative fault rule means even a plaintiff with significant fault recovers a proportional share of damages. |
| Missouri dog bite laws | Strict liability | RSMo § 273.036 | 5 years | Pure comparative | Longest filing window on this list; minor's claim tolled to 21. |
| Montana dog bite laws | Strict liability | Mont. Code § 27-1-715 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Rural insurance market means coverage confirmation is a critical early investigation step — uninsured homeowners rates are higher in Montana than in most urban strict liability states on this site. |
| Nebraska dog bite laws | Strict liability | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601 | 4 years | Modified (50% bar) | Four-year filing deadline — one of the longest of any strict liability state. § 54-601 covers "killing, wounding, injuring, worrying, or chasing" — broader than bite-only statutes. |
| Nevada dog bite laws | Negligence (no statute) | No dog bite statute — Glass v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 87 Nev. 321 (1971) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | The only state here with no dog bite statute at all. Nevada rejected the one-bite rule in 1971 — claims run on ordinary negligence. |
| New Hampshire dog bite laws | Strict liability | RSA 466:19 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Defenses are statutory and narrow — only trespass and deliberate provocation (teasing, tormenting, abusing the dog) are complete defenses. Government entity claims require written notice within 60 days for municipal defendants under RSA 507-B:7. |
| New Jersey dog bite laws | Strict liability | N.J. Stat. § 4:19-16 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | One of the oldest strict liability statutes in the country (enacted 1933). Harboring liability extends to landlords and employers who knowingly permit a dangerous dog — both faces of the same claim, not alternatives. |
| New Mexico dog bite laws | One-bite rule | NMSA § 37-1-8 (no civil bite statute) | 3 years | Pure comparative | Government entity notice deadline is only 90 days under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (NMSA § 41-4-16) — the shortest of any state on this site. Claims run on common law with no civil dog bite statute. |
| New York dog bite laws | Mixed statute | N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 123 | 3 years | Pure comparative | Strict liability covers medical and veterinary costs only. Flanders v. Goodfellow (Apr 2025) restored ordinary negligence claims after 19 years. |
| North Carolina dog bite laws | Mixed statute | N.C.G.S. §§ 67-4.4, 67-12 | 3 years | Pure contributory — 1% bars all recovery | The harshest fault rule in the country. Any contributory negligence at all, however slight, defeats the entire claim. |
| North Dakota dog bite laws | One-bite rule | NDCC 28-01-16(5) (no civil bite statute) | 6 years | Modified (50% bar) | Six-year filing deadline — the longest personal injury window of any state on this site. Modified 50% bar means a plaintiff at exactly 50% fault recovers nothing — stricter than the 51% bar in neighboring Wyoming and New Hampshire. |
| Ohio (this page) | Strict liability | Ohio Rev. Code § 955.28(B) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Liability reaches the owner, keeper AND harborer. Avery's Law (Mar 2026) added a $100,000 insurance mandate for dangerous dogs. |
| Oklahoma dog bite laws | Strict liability | 4 O.S. § 42.1 | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | Oklahoma's comparative fault bar falls at 50% — a plaintiff found exactly 50% at fault recovers nothing. This is one percentage point more restrictive than Oregon and New Jersey, where 50% plaintiff fault still allows a half-damages recovery. |
| Oregon dog bite laws | Strict liability | ORS 31.360 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Oregon bans breed-specific ordinances statewide under ORS 609.205 — no city or county may restrict or regulate dogs by breed. The liability analysis under ORS 31.360 is fully breed-neutral. |
| Pennsylvania dog bite laws | Mixed statute | 3 P.S. § 459-502 (Dog Law) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Strict liability covers medical costs only. Pain and suffering requires proving a "severe injury" or the dog's dangerous propensities. |
| Rhode Island dog bite laws | Strict liability | RIGL § 4-13-16 | 3 years | Pure comparative | Pure comparative fault — recovery is never barred by victim fault, regardless of the percentage. A plaintiff found 90% at fault still recovers 10% of their damages. The most plaintiff-favorable comparative fault system in New England. |
| South Carolina dog bite laws | Strict liability | S.C. Code § 47-3-110 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Keeper liability is express in the statute — liability extends to any person having the dog "in their care or keeping," making dog walkers and boarding facilities directly liable on the same strict liability terms as the registered owner. |
| South Dakota dog bite laws | Strict liability | SDCL § 40-34-1 | 3 years | Slight/gross doctrine | Extends strict liability to "keepers and harborers" — not just the registered owner. Uses unique "slight/gross" comparative negligence rather than standard percentage-based fault. Government entity claims require 180-day written notice under SDCL § 3-21-2. |
| Tennessee dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413 | 1 year | Modified (50% bar) | The only state with a "residential exclusion" — strict liability drops away if the bite happened on the owner's own residential or farm property. |
| Texas dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No statute — Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | No dog bite statute. Recovery requires proving the owner knew of the dog's dangerous propensities, or ordinary negligent handling. |
| Utah dog bite laws | Strict liability | Utah Code § 18-1-1 | 4 years | Modified (50% bar) | Four-year filing deadline — one of the longest of any strict liability state in the country. Utah's statute also has no express lawful-presence language, making the reach of strict liability potentially broader than states with that textual limitation. |
| Vermont dog bite laws | Strict liability | 20 V.S.A. § 3461 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Statute requires victim to have been "peaceably conducting himself or herself" in a lawful location — courts interpret this narrowly to exclude only deliberate provocateurs, not ordinary people in normal activity. Vermont's rural character means farm policies rather than homeowners insurance are common in agricultural-area cases. |
| Virginia dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute — common-law one-bite rule | 2 years | Pure contributory (any fault bars) | Two compounding disadvantages for victims: no strict liability statute (must prove owner's prior knowledge) plus pure contributory negligence (any fault bars entirely). Strict liability only available after a prior "dangerous dog" designation under § 3.2-6553. |
| Washington dog bite laws | Strict liability | RCW 16.08.040 | 3 years | Pure comparative | Broad strict liability, but provocation is a COMPLETE defense — and a fenced or posted property removes the implied consent that makes you lawfully present. |
| West Virginia dog bite laws | Strict liability | W. Va. Code § 19-20-13 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Harboring theory expressly extends strict liability to landlords who knowingly allowed a dangerous dog on their rental property — a second defendant category not available in most strict liability states. |
| Wisconsin dog bite laws | Strict liability | Wis. Stat. § 174.02 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Double damages are mandatory by statute — not discretionary — whenever the owner was notified or knew the dog had previously injured someone. The entire damages award doubles automatically once prior knowledge is established. |
| Wyoming dog bite laws | One-bite rule | Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105 (no civil bite statute) | 4 years | Modified (51% bar) | Four-year filing deadline — the longest of any one-bite rule state on this site. Modified 51% bar means a plaintiff at exactly 50% fault still recovers half their damages, unlike neighboring one-bite states. |
Ohio dog bite questions, answered
The questions Ohio readers ask most often. General information, not legal advice.
Who can be sued for a dog bite in Ohio?
More people than in most states. Ohio Rev. Code § 955.28(B) imposes liability on the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog. A keeper is someone with physical care or charge of the animal; a harborer is someone who has possession and control of the premises where the dog lives and silently permits it there. That can bring a dog walker, house-sitter or landlord into the claim — and with them, additional insurance coverage.
What is Avery's Law and does it affect my claim?
Avery's Law (House Bill 247) was signed in December 2025 and took effect in March 2026. It replaced Ohio's classification scheme with a three-tier nuisance, dangerous and vicious system based on behaviour, gave dog wardens immediate seizure authority after an unprovoked attack causing serious injury, and requires owners of dangerous or vicious dogs to carry at least $100,000 in liability insurance. It is named for Avery Russell, an 11-year-old Reynoldsburg girl seriously injured in a 2024 attack.
Does Ohio have a one-bite rule?
No. Section 955.28(B) makes the owner, keeper or harborer liable for injury caused by the dog without any need to show the dog had bitten before or that anyone knew it was dangerous. A separate common-law action still exists and is sometimes pleaded alongside the statute, particularly where punitive damages are in play.
What defeats an Ohio dog bite claim?
Section 955.28(B) contains three exceptions: the injured person was committing or attempting criminal trespass or another criminal offense above a minor misdemeanor on the property; was committing a criminal offense above a minor misdemeanor against any person; or was teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog. The teasing exception is narrower than it first appears — by the statute's terms it applies to conduct on the owner's, keeper's or harborer's property.
Is there a cap on pain and suffering in Ohio?
Yes, in most tort actions. Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.18 limits non-economic damages to the greater of $250,000 or three times economic damages, subject to an overall ceiling. The cap does not apply where the injury involves permanent and substantial physical deformity or loss of use of a limb or organ system — a threshold that serious dog bite injuries can meet, which is why the medical characterisation of scarring matters so much in Ohio.
How long do I have to file in Ohio?
Two years from the date of the bite under Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10. For a minor, § 2305.16 tolls the period until they turn 18. Unlike Arizona, Ohio does not run a separate shorter clock on the statutory claim.
Are pit bulls still legally "vicious" in Ohio?
No. Ohio removed breed from its statutory definition of a vicious dog in 2012, so state law is behaviour-based rather than breed-based. Ohio does not preempt local ordinances, however, so individual municipalities may still regulate specific breeds — which affects where a dog may lawfully be kept, not liability under § 955.28.
Key Takeaways for Ohio Dog Bite Victims
Ohio follows the Strict Liability standard — that determines whether you need to prove the owner's prior knowledge or can hold them liable automatically. Understanding which standard applies is the first step in knowing whether you have a viable claim.
Your filing deadline is fixed by state law. Missing it permanently closes your case, no matter how strong the evidence is. Start the clock from the date of the bite.
Document everything from day one — photos of the injury, medical records, the dog owner's name, and any witness contact details. That documentation is the single most controllable factor in how much you ultimately recover.
Ready to understand what your case may be worth? See Ohio settlement amounts or connect with a Ohio dog bite lawyer for a free case review.
Sources & References
- 📄Ohio Rev. Code § 955.28 — Ohio primary statute (Justia)
- 📊CDC Dog Bite Prevention — national injury statistics and prevention guidance
- ⚖️American Bar Association — Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice