In the case of Mullins v. Liberty Twp., 2022-Ohio-4350, the appellate court held that a township was not liable for injuries arising from a police dog bite because “civil liability” for police dog bites is not expressly imposed upon the township by any section of the Revised Code including, but not limited to, R.C. 955.28.
In this case, the injured individual argued that R.C. 955.28 expressly imposes civil liability upon the township for injuries resulting from dog bites. In response, the township argued that R.C. 955.28 is a general liability statute and does not expressly impose civil liability on a political subdivision. The appellate court agreed with the township.
In support of its decision, the appellate court explained that the R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) immunity exception does not apply as R.C. 955.28 is a general liability statute and does not expressly impose civil liability upon the township.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.