THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 36 | SEPTEMBER 2025 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. based on his lack of ownership of the dogs. The parents’ negligence allegations included claims of failing to properly maintain the fence between the properties and keeping the pit bulls on chains designed to keep them in close proximity to each other while prohibiting their contact (known for making such dogs aggressive). Based upon such evidence, the court ruled that a jury must determine if the defendant is liable for the child’s injuries in spite of his “not my dog” defense. The parents’ negligence per se allegations were based upon three ordinances that prohibited vicious dogs from being kept in Tulsa and expanded the definition of “owner” beyond the scope of Oklahoma’s dog bite statute (4 O.S. §42.1). Title 2, Ch. 1: §§2(d), (1)(d) and §(1)(b) (1973). Section 2(d) defines what constitutes an offense: It shall be an offense under the terms of this Chapter for any owner within the corporate limits of the City of Tulsa to: … Harbor, keep or have possession of any vicious animal. Sections (1)(d) and (1)(b) define “owner” and “vicious animal” for purposes of 2(d). An owner within §(1)(d) is not limited to individuals with a legal right to possession and includes anyone who cares for, has custody of, keeps or maintains any dog, cat or domestic animal. A vicious animal under §(1)(b) is defined broadly and encompasses more than vicious propensities attributable to a specific animal or breed known to be naturally fierce or to attack humans/animals without provocation. Specifically, (1)(b) defined vicious animal as “one not only of a disposition to attack every person or animal it may meet, but it includes as well a natural fierceness or disposition to mischief, as might occasionally lead it to attack human beings, or animals, without provocation.” According to Hampton, “When a city ordinance is violated, the elements of actionable negligence are: (1) the injury must have been caused by the violation; (2) the injury must be of a type intended to be prevented by the ordinance; and (3) the injured party must be one of the class meant to be protected by the ordinance.”3 All three elements were satisfied, and the ruling on the first element (causation) was determined by disputed material facts concerning: 1) disrepair of the fence separating the parties’ backyards, 2) ownership of the fence, 3) whether the manner in which the dog that attacked the child was maintained/ chained led it be aggressive, 4) the defendant’s knowledge of the child’s previous entries into his backyard and 5) whether the defendant impliedly consented to the child entering his property. Thus, the court held that a jury had to resolve the parents’ negligence per se allegations as well. In regard to 4 O.S. §42.1, the court analyzed four elements that must be proven: 1) ownership of the subject dog, 2) lack of provocation, 3) injury caused by the subject dog and 4) the victim being lawfully present where the attack took place.4 In most cases, appellate courts applied a narrow standard to who qualifies as an “owner” under 4 O.S. §42.1. However, the Hampton court applied Tulsa Ordinance (1)(d) cumulatively with 4 O.S. §42.1 because it expanded “owner” to include persons who harbor or exercise control over a dog, and such expansion is consistent with the city of Tulsa’s legitimate concern of protecting its residents from injuries or death from vicious dogs. As a result, the defendant/property owner was deemed to be an owner of the pit bull that attacked the young boy.5 MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES EXPANDING LIABILITY The definition of “owner” is also broader than typical in other cities’ ordinances, presumably to achieve the same protection of residents recognized in Hampton. The cities with such ordinances include Altus (4-1), Ardmore (5-1), Bixby (5-6A-1), Broken Bow (6-1), Del City (4-4), Edmond (7.08.050(c)), El Reno (135-1), Enid (5-7-1), Lawton (5-1-101(34)), Moore (4-101), Mustang (14-1), Oklahoma City (8-5(19) and 8-131(f)), Spencer (6-1) and Yukon (14-1). To avoid problems, property owners should periodically monitor the ordinances for cities in which they have properties, since new or amended ordinances may be issued. Other cities have implemented different ordinances to prevent dangerous and menacing dogs from being kept on any property within city limits. The city of Oklahoma City enacted ordinances that prohibit all property owners from allowing any dangerous or menacing animals to be harbored, possessed or maintained on their properties. Ordinance 8-132 provides: “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to own, harbor, possess, or maintain a dangerous animal, except as authorized by order of the Municipal Court. No person who has an ownership interest in real property shall permit another person to harbor, possess, or maintain on that property any dangerous animal, except as authorized by order of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==