Vicki
Administrator
Neighborhood leaders agree with Ohio high court on vicious dogs
By LINDA MARTZ • News Journal • August 29, 2009
MANSFIELD — Neighborhood watch leaders agree with an Ohio Supreme Court decision upholding a Youngstown ordinance that required vicious dogs to be confined.
Two justices dissented in the 5-2 ruling — questioning whether it’s fair to convict a dog owner retroactively after a one-time attack that may have occurred too quickly to stop.
Oakenwaldt neighborhood watch leader Patsy Rambo said Friday she thinks convicting a dog owner after an attack is fair.
“Do I think a dog owner should be responsible for what a dog does? Absolutely,†she said.
“People think just because it happened once, that person shouldn’t be convicted,†she said, but a dog owner has a duty to make sure an animal is restrained. If a dog is allowed to run free, or breaks an inadequate chain, then bites someone, the owner probably didn’t use common sense, she said.
“I’m a dog owner myself, but I make sure I keep my dog secured,†she said.
Problems with loose dogs tearing up items, trashing yards or acting aggressively come up frequently at watch meetings, Rambo said.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed a decision by the 7th District Court of Appeals, which had held that Youngstown’s ordinance violates a dog owner’s right to due process.
The case arose from an April 2007 incident in which Youngstown resident David Roch and his small dog were attacked in a city park by two unleashed and unaccompanied mastiff mixes. Roch and his dog were bitten.
Police shot both dogs after they advanced toward officers.
Youngstown resident Jammie Traylor was charged under a city ordinance prohibiting the owner of a “vicious†dog from allowing it to leave the premises without being securely leashed or restrained. He was fined, sentenced to 90 days in jail, required to pay restitution and ordered to own “nothing bigger than a Chihuahua†while on probation for two years.
In a ruling released Wednesday, Ohio Justice Evelyn Stratton wrote cities have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens. Youngstown’s ordinance “does not classify or label dogs as vicious. Dogs are rendered vicious under the ordinance by their propensity to attack or by their attack, and dog owners are merely required to keep such dogs confined,†she said.
“Traylor argues that an owner cannot know that his dog is vicious until he is convicted under the ordinance. To hold otherwise, however, is to permit each dog ‘one free bite,’ a result that would clearly leave society at risk,†she wrote.
Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and Judith Ann Lanzinger dissented. “The owner of a dog is being sent to jail for 90 days based on his failure to do something he could not know he was supposed to do. ‘Vicious’ dogs must be restrained. … But Traylor’s dog was not ‘vicious’ until the moment it bit a human, at which point it was too late for Traylor to restrain his dog,†Pfeifer wrote.
“A dog owner cannot totally evade responsibility for the consequences of failure to restrain a dog — there is always the potential for civi liability,†Lanzinger wrote.
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20090829/NEWS01/908290317
By LINDA MARTZ • News Journal • August 29, 2009
MANSFIELD — Neighborhood watch leaders agree with an Ohio Supreme Court decision upholding a Youngstown ordinance that required vicious dogs to be confined.
Two justices dissented in the 5-2 ruling — questioning whether it’s fair to convict a dog owner retroactively after a one-time attack that may have occurred too quickly to stop.
Oakenwaldt neighborhood watch leader Patsy Rambo said Friday she thinks convicting a dog owner after an attack is fair.
“Do I think a dog owner should be responsible for what a dog does? Absolutely,†she said.
“People think just because it happened once, that person shouldn’t be convicted,†she said, but a dog owner has a duty to make sure an animal is restrained. If a dog is allowed to run free, or breaks an inadequate chain, then bites someone, the owner probably didn’t use common sense, she said.
“I’m a dog owner myself, but I make sure I keep my dog secured,†she said.
Problems with loose dogs tearing up items, trashing yards or acting aggressively come up frequently at watch meetings, Rambo said.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed a decision by the 7th District Court of Appeals, which had held that Youngstown’s ordinance violates a dog owner’s right to due process.
The case arose from an April 2007 incident in which Youngstown resident David Roch and his small dog were attacked in a city park by two unleashed and unaccompanied mastiff mixes. Roch and his dog were bitten.
Police shot both dogs after they advanced toward officers.
Youngstown resident Jammie Traylor was charged under a city ordinance prohibiting the owner of a “vicious†dog from allowing it to leave the premises without being securely leashed or restrained. He was fined, sentenced to 90 days in jail, required to pay restitution and ordered to own “nothing bigger than a Chihuahua†while on probation for two years.
In a ruling released Wednesday, Ohio Justice Evelyn Stratton wrote cities have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens. Youngstown’s ordinance “does not classify or label dogs as vicious. Dogs are rendered vicious under the ordinance by their propensity to attack or by their attack, and dog owners are merely required to keep such dogs confined,†she said.
“Traylor argues that an owner cannot know that his dog is vicious until he is convicted under the ordinance. To hold otherwise, however, is to permit each dog ‘one free bite,’ a result that would clearly leave society at risk,†she wrote.
Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and Judith Ann Lanzinger dissented. “The owner of a dog is being sent to jail for 90 days based on his failure to do something he could not know he was supposed to do. ‘Vicious’ dogs must be restrained. … But Traylor’s dog was not ‘vicious’ until the moment it bit a human, at which point it was too late for Traylor to restrain his dog,†Pfeifer wrote.
“A dog owner cannot totally evade responsibility for the consequences of failure to restrain a dog — there is always the potential for civi liability,†Lanzinger wrote.
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20090829/NEWS01/908290317