Is Dog-Attack Victim Required to Choose Between Pursuing Statutory or Common Law Negligence Claim?
Yoshanta Beckett et al. v. Richard Warren et al., Case no. 2008-2106 9th District Court of Appeals (Summit County) May a plaintiff seeking damages for bodily injury caused by a dog attack simultaneously pursue both a statutory claim under R.C. 955.28 and a common law negligence claim against the dog’s owner, or is the plaintiff required to choose between those causes of action, and prosecute only one of them? BACKGROUND: A ‘strict liability’ provision of state law, R.C. 955.28, allows a person who is injured by another person’s dog to recover compensatory damages from the dog’s owner without proving that the owner knew the dog was dangerous or that the owner acted negligently in failing to prevent the attack. Plaintiffs asserting claims under the strict liability statute are barred from seeking or recovering punitive damages from the owner, and case law interpreting the statute has held that in lawsuits brought under it, evidence regarding any prior attacks by the same dog is inadmissi
