SEPTEMBER 2025 | 37 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 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. the Municipal Court.”6 Ordinance 8-133 declares: “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to own, harbor, possess or maintain a menacing 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 menacing animal, except as authorized by order of the Municipal Court.”7 Ordinance 8-131 defines dangerous and menacing as follows: (c) Dangerous animal means any animal: (1) that bites or inflicts an injury upon a person or domestic animal; or (2) that is owned, trained, used, or harbored, primarily or in part, for the purpose of animal fighting. (e) Menacing animal means an animal that growls, snarls, takes an aggressive stance, or shows its teeth toward a domestic animal or person, or that destroys property (e.g., a fence) in an attempt to get to a person or domestic animal. It is easy to understand how these ordinances should dramatically reduce the number of violent attacks on children and adults throughout Oklahoma City, but only if property owners know and comply with them. Thus, any attorneys who represent property owners, whether they rent such properties to tenants or not, should notify their clients immediately. Failure to comply with the mandates of these ordinances can cost lives and result in substantial liability for injuries caused by dogs or other animals that fall within their definitions of “dangerous” or “menacing.” In a recent case, Terrell v. Chapman, et al., the owner of a residential development within Oklahoma City limits was held liable for severe injuries suffered by a 6-year-old girl in an unprovoked attack by a rottweiler allowed to live in a duplex in the development.8 At trial, the injured child’s mother asserted negligence and negligence per se claims against the property owner based upon its disregard of complaints about aggressive acts by the rottweiler and violations of §§8-131 and 8-132 (previous versions). Before the attack, the property owner received multiple emails reporting the dog had shown aggressive behavior over several months. Some of these emails included photographs of fence damage caused by the dog, along with complaints that it was being kept outside in extreme weather. Yet, the property owner never took any action to remove the rottweiler or its owners from the property, which it was empowered to do under its lease with the tenants who owned that dog. Instead, it proceeded with a “not my dog” posture that proved unwise and contrary to the above-referenced ordinances. The jury awarded over $5 million Thus, any attorneys who represent property owners, whether they rent such properties to tenants or not, should notify their clients immediately. Failure to comply with the mandates of these ordinances can cost lives and result in substantial liability for injuries caused by dogs or other animals that fall within their definitions of ‘dangerous’ or ‘menacing.’
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==