Not breed restriction, but may put liability on owners

[tugger5000]

Ohio Revised Codes, § 955.28 Dog may be killed for certain acts; owner liable for damages.
Text of Statute

(A) Subject to divisions (A)(2) and (3) of section 955.261 [955.26.1] 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, 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, approaching, attempt, killing, or injury. If, in attempting to kill such a dog, a person wounds it, he is not liable to prosecution under the penal laws which punish cruelty to animals.

(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 a trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner, keeper, or harborer, or was committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense against any person, or was teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog on the owner's, keeper's, or harborer's property.

The thing that bothers me about this law is that people will be likely to assume that a Rotweiller, Great Dane, etc. is chasing in a menacing manner. In part B, the burden of proof comes upon the owner to prove teasing, etc, which in the case of a Rott, could be a lost cause due to the prejudice.

[Judi W]

That has always been the law in the western states. If my cattle, lambs, chickens, whatever are on their own property and a dog is on that property threatening them, I have the right to kill it. The dog does not have to have killed a calf first either.

Solution - don't let your dogs run at large.

[moondog]

Personally, I think that's the kind of accountability owners should be required to have. Heck, that's even better than some....there are some statutes that enable a burglar to prosecute for an attack by a dog on the property as they're carrying all your stuff out of your house. I'd be happy if this statute you cite applied uniformly across the country.

The only time a dog or owner would be subjected to it is if the dog was allowed to roam free without being under the control of his owner. The only dogs that have ever caused a problem for me have been doing exactly that, so I see it as a good law to have on the books.

[Sansano]

Originally posted by Judi W
That has always been the law in the western states. If my cattle, lambs, chickens, whatever are on their own property and a dog is on that property threatening them, I have the right to kill it. The dog does not have to have killed a calf first either.

Solution - don't let your dogs run at large.

Exactly. Thank You.:D

[lblax]

looks like a good law to me write your congressman and help get it passed

[tugger5000]

Agree with all above, but don't think I was clear.

The statement, "dog that is chasing or approaching in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack", on leash or off leash, leaves the interpretation up to the individual. With the public's perception of a "viscious" breed, a dog tied up to a stake or behind their fence barking at pedestrians could be considered menacing just because it is a Rottweiller.

[rottmommie]

however if this dog is on private property being "menacing", then it would be up to the idiot on the other side of the property to leave it alone. You cant just shoot a dog in his own yard because he is barking.

[RSQRottweiler]

Originally posted by tugger5000
Agree with all above, but don't think I was clear.

The statement, "dog that is chasing or approaching in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack", on leash or off leash, leaves the interpretation up to the individual. With the public's perception of a "viscious" breed, a dog tied up to a stake or behind their fence barking at pedestrians could be considered menacing just because it is a Rottweiller.

I agree, Tugger. . .it's very vague about "apparent attitude of attack." For some people, all it takes is a Rottweiler looking at them and they think the dog is going to attack. I'm not exactly up to having to defend myself and my dog in court because Sebastian looked at someone. While I think it was created with good intentions, it could be twisted around in so many ways.

Though I also agree with the solution proposed by Judi -- don't let your dogs run loose in the first place.

Audrey

[shadowrottie]

I think that is a very good law. Yes, that portion is a bit grey, but it really doesn't matter. To paranoid people, a rottie looking at them and standing up is the same thing as a snarling, snapping lunge and that's how they will tell it in court.

The only thing defining that more would do is to turn it into one of those documents that's so obscurely worded that it takes a lawyer and a linguist to unravel. We just have to have hope that our peers or the jury have enough brainpower to see past the bad reputation.