O'NEILL, J.
The plaintiff's principal assignment of error is that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the enactment of Section 955.28, Revised Code, abrogated the common law of Ohio with respect to an action for damage or injury resulting from an attack by a vicious dog owned and harbored by a defendant.
The controlling question in this appeal is: Does Section 955.28, Revised Code, abrogate the common law of Ohio with respect to liability of dog owners...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
