Pflaum v. Summit Cnty. Animal Control
92 N.E.3d 132
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On July 13, 2015, Marvin Pflaum’s pit bull, Edwin, and a smaller neighborhood dog, Rudy, fought; neighbor Trixie Cleminshaw intervened and was bitten once on the hand, requiring significant medical treatment.
- Summit County Animal Control issued notice that Edwin was a "dangerous dog," and Pflaum requested a hearing under R.C. 955.222(C); Animal Control bore the burden to prove dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence.
- At the administrative hearing, evidence conflicted about whether Cleminshaw struck or punched Edwin while pulling his collar to free Rudy; parties stipulated Rudy did not provoke Edwin.
- A dog-behavior expert for Pflaum testified Edwin showed no signs of persistent aggression and that a scared dog might bite once in defense.
- The magistrate found Animal Control failed to prove Edwin acted "without provocation" under R.C. 955.11(A)(1)(a) and declined to classify Edwin as a dangerous dog.
- The trial court sustained Animal Control’s objections and reversed, finding Edwin acted without provocation and concluding Edwin was a dangerous dog; the appellate court reversed the trial court and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Animal Control proved Edwin was a "dangerous dog" under R.C. 955.11(A)(1)(a) by clear and convincing evidence | Pflaum: Trial court improperly reversed magistrate; evidence shows provocation (Cleminshaw struck/pulled collar) so Animal Control failed to meet its burden | Animal Control: Edwin injured a person "without provocation" because Cleminshaw only intervened to save another dog and did not tease, torment, or abuse Edwin | Reversed trial court: Evidence showed Cleminshaw struck/pulled Edwin (at least "tormenting"); thus record does not support clear-and-convincing finding that Edwin acted "without provocation." Magistrate's decision must stand; case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review in Ohio appellate courts)
- Pulley v. Malek, 25 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1986) (well-intentioned conduct can nonetheless constitute "tormenting" of a dog under statutory analysis)
- In re Estate of Haynes, 25 Ohio St.3d 101 (Ohio 1986) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Quellos v. Quellos, 96 Ohio App.3d 31 (Ohio Ct. App.) (definitions of "teasing," "tormenting," and "abusing" when analyzing dog-liability statutes)