Court Opinion

ID: 9802083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:58:13.263826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:33.618185
License: Public Domain

Lanzinger, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 37} I join Justice Pfeifer’s dissent. With respect to the majority’s concern over “one free bite,” a dog owner cannot totally evade responsibility for the consequences of failure to restrain a dog — there is always the potential for civil liability. We held in State v. Cowan, 103 Ohio St.3d 144, 2004-Ohio-4777, 814 *140N.E.2d 846, syllabus, that a statute requiring the confinement of vicious dogs violates the constitutional right to procedural due process if it fails to provide dog owners a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether a dog is vicious. I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals that the reasoning in Cowan controls the outcome of this case.
Joseph R. Macejko, Youngstown Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
James E. Lanzo, for appellee.