Legal 'Dog Bite King' Explains Blockbuster High Court Ruling for Dog Bite Victims in New York

dog bite victims new york
Dog bite victims in New York can now recover damages through negligence.

Press Release
Albany, NY - On Friday, the highest court in New York issued a landmark ruling for dog bite victims. Dog owners can now be held liable for negligence when their dog injures a person. The Flanders v. Goodfellow decision overruled a 2006 decision (Bard v. Jahnke) that "denied victims the right to sue for careless handling of a dangerous dog," states dogbitelaw.com in a press release. "For the first time in nearly 20 years, dog bite victims in New York can pursue compensation based on negligence."

New York Court of Appeals: Flanders v. Goodfellow (2025) | Bard v. Jahnke (2006)

Dog bite victims in New York can now pursue two of the three legal options to obtain compensation, states attorney Kenneth Phillips of dogbitelaw.com. The first option is the one bite rule, where a victim must prove the dog owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities (such as by a previous bite) in order to recover damages. The second option, a legal right that residents in all other states have always had, and now New York joins them, is to recover damages based on negligence.

The third option, and the most modern, is the ability for victims to pursue compensation based on statutory strict liability. Nearly 30 states impose strict liability, where a legislature has adopted a well-drafted dog bite law, making a dog owner legally liable to a victim who was bitten or attacked without the victim having to prove negligence or the one bite rule. The third option remains restricted to dog bite victims in New York, because it is a "mixed dog bite statute state," along with several others.

The lower courts dismissed Flanders’s negligence cause of action as barred by Bard v Jahnke (6 NY3d 592 [2006]), which held that there can be no common-law negligence liability when a domestic animal causes harm. Experience has shown that this rule is in tension with ordinary tort principles, unworkable, and, in some circumstances, unfair ...

Flanders asks us to overrule that aspect of Bard and to recognize negligence as an alternative to strict liability for injuries caused by domestic animals ...

"Although a court should be slow to overrule its precedents, there is little reason to avoid doing so when persuaded by the ‘lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning’ " ... Thus, where we have concluded that a "rule of nonliability is out of tune with the life about us, at variance with modern-day needs and with concepts of justice and fair dealing," we have overruled it. - Flanders v. Goodfellow

Dogbitelaw.com describes the background of Bard. "The facts of Bard illustrate this harsh rule. Mr. Bard, a carpenter, was seriously injured by a breeding bull while working in a barn. He hadn’t been warned the bull was inside. The bull, named Fred, had never hurt anyone before. Because of that, the defendants claimed they had no duty to warn Bard or remove Fred from the barn. Bard’s lawsuit was dismissed. He got nothing for his broken ribs, torn liver, or aggravated spine injury," writes Phillips.

Although Bard is about a "breeding bull", which the appellants argued, "'bulls, in particular breeding bulls, are generally dangerous and vicious animals,' and that therefore Jahnke should have restrained the bull or warned Bard of its presence," Bard also has breed-specific influences. The Court found appellants' argument unavailing, especially in light of its consistent view that "the particular type or breed of domestic animal alone is insufficient to raise a question of fact as to vicious propensities."

What Happened in Flanders?

"Rebecca Flanders, a postal carrier, was bitten by a dog owned by Defendants Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow while delivering a package to their residence," wrote the Court in Flanders v. Goodfellow. She began an action to recover damages from her injuries through strict liability and negligence. In New York, strict liability is obtainable by proving the one bite rule. Lower courts dismissed both causes of action. Flanders appealed to this Court, who reversed Bard, and reinstated both causes of action.

The facts in the Flanders case are powerful. The dog sprayed saliva and "slammed into window glass." The attack occurred on December 8, 2018.

On that day, Flanders arrived at Goodfellow's house to deliver mail, but found their mailbox missing. She drove into the horseshoe driveway to leave a package on the porch. As she did, she heard a dog barking, but saw no warning signs or alerts on her scanner. Stephen Goodfellow opened the door. As she handed him the package and told him about the mailbox, she "heard the sound of nails 'ticking' on a hardwood floor." The dog slipped through the door, lunged at Flanders' neck, and bit her shoulder.

Stephen Goodfellow opened the door to meet Flanders on the porch. As she handed him the package and began to tell him that the mailbox was down, Flanders heard the sound of nails "ticking" on a hardwood floor and saw a large dog approaching the door from inside the house. The dog slipped past Stephen through the open door and, as Stephen yelled its name, lunged towards Flanders’s neck. Flanders raised her hand to cover her face and neck. The dog bit her shoulder, latching its teeth into her flesh and breaking skin. With the package still in hand, Stephen tugged at the dog to release its hold. When he managed to break the dog’s grip, Flanders went directly to her vehicle without looking back. She later learned that the dog bite had caused a "snap tear" in her shoulder muscle, an injury that required multiple surgeries and resulted in permanent scarring. - Flanders v. Goodfellow

Evidence showed the 70 pound dog "yank[ed] people around" when leashed, even "dragg[ing] Michelle to the ground." The Goodfellows hired a dog trainer. After a two week session, Michelle posted on social media that their dog could now run "off leash in the yard," was no longer "jumping," and "tolerate[d] other moving critters." The couple testified the "dog did not interact with strangers because they did not enter the house," and they "had never seen the dog growl or bare its teeth."

Flanders produced sworn affidavits from two postal workers who had delivered mail to the Goodfellows' home over a few year period. One of them said that when he approached the house, the couple's dog "would actually bite the window, as though it was trying to bite you," causing its "saliva [to] project onto the window." The dog also slammed into the window glass, "as though it was trying to get through to attack." The other postal worker testified to similar experiences with the dog.

One of them said that when he approached the house, the Goodfellows’ dog "would actually bite the window, as though it was trying to bite you," causing its "saliva [to] project onto the window." The dog would bare its teeth "during these episodes, and it barked, snarled, and growled. It also slammed into the window glass, as though it was trying to get through and attack." The worker asserted that the Goodfellows’ dog was "the most aggressive" he had ever encountered on his routes, and he was "sure" that "if the dog’s owners were home when these deliveries occurred or they have surveillance footage of the dog’s actions during these deliveries, they knew or should have known the dog was aggressive or dangerous before the attack" ...

The other postal worker ... said that nearly every time he delivered a package to the front porch, he could see the dog through the glass windows on either side of the door. It "was extremely loud, barking and snarling, and slamming its face and head into the glass in what looked to be an attempt to attack [him] through the glass." He "believe[d] that home residents would have witnessed the dog’s behavior," noting that the dog "was extremely loud and created a huge ruckus such that anybody home would have known of it" - Flanders v. Goodfellow

The trial court, which is the Supreme Court in New York (see diagram), awarded the Goodfellows summary judgment and dismissed the claim. The court found the affidavits from the postal workers insufficient because neither proved the Goodfellows were home at the time or that the owners otherwise knew about the dog's behavior. Thus, Flanders' cause of action for strict liability, which required proving the owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities, failed.

Due to the Bard decision, which barred the negligence cause of action, holding that "there can be no common-law negligence liability when a domestic animal causes harm," Flanders' cause of action for negligence was dismissed too. Flanders appealed to the Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, which affirmed both parts. Flanders failed to demonstrate the owners knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities and Flanders' negligence cause of action was properly dismissed.

The highest court issued a response to both parts, finding that both lower courts errored in granting summary judgment for the strict liability cause of action. "A court reviewing a motion for summary judgment must view the facts "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party" and it may not "make credibility determinations or findings of fact," wrote the Court. In other words, the affidavits of the other postal workers were a "triable issue of fact" and sufficient to continue the litigation.

In this same decision, the Court overruled Bard, finally recognizing "negligence as an alternative to strict liability for injuries caused by domestic animals." Again, the "rule of nonliability is out of tune" with "modern-day needs and with concepts of justice and fair dealing," wrote the Court. Common law negligence is defined as, "the absence of care, according to the circumstances." A person acts negligently if the person "does not exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances."

The Court overruled Bard, attorney Phillips explains, because, "It shifted the burden of injury onto victims instead of negligent dog owners, and it discouraged owners from learning about their dog’s dangerous tendencies." Further, "36 other states recognized negligence; the rest had not rejected it." New York courts "had already chipped away at Bard through exceptions,1 and it was simply unfair." Flanders now gives New Yorkers two of the three legal options. But they also need the third.

A well-written statutory law enacted by a state legislature "offers compensation without forcing victims to prove the dog was known to be dangerous or the owner was careless. It’s limited -- it doesn’t apply to trespassers or those who provoke dogs -- but it covers most victims," writes Phillips. The ancient one bite rule and negligence are both common law. Modern law is developed through statutes, in this case a dog bite statute. The legal website urges the New York state legislature to "act now."

National Significance

The press release by dogbitelaw.com also states the decision in Flanders has national significance. Flanders "holds that negligence and the one bite rule are entirely separate grounds of liability," states the release. "The New York Court of Appeals’ emphasized that the one bite rule is entirely different than the negligence doctrine," Phillips tells CityWatch. "The one bite rule is based on what the animal actually did in the past, while the negligence doctrine focuses on what might happen in the future."

Many state courts and legislatures have mistakenly treated the two legal theories as one in the same, Phillips said. But as Flanders shows, the plaintiff can pursue compensation under both legal theories. "The one-bite rule demands proof that something similar already happened and the defendant knew it or should have known it. Establishing negligence does not require a prior similar act," Phillips tells CityWatch. "Therefore, the Flanders case has the potential to influence reforms in other states."

Watch the oral arguments: No. 29 Flanders v Goodfellow, March 12, 2025

Dog bite attorney Kenneth Phillips of dogbitelaw.com explains Flanders v. Goodfellow.


1Prior to the Court overturning Bard there were several notable carve-outs ("ad hoc exceptions to Bard’s no-negligence rule"). In Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, the Court concluded that veterinary clinics could be held liable in negligence. The Court concluded, a clinic is "uniquely well-equipped to anticipate and guard against the risk of aggressive animal behavior that may occur in their practices." Seven years after Bard, the Court recognized the exception for harm caused by a wandering animal. "In Hastings v Sauve, a cow crossed a neglected fence and ended up on a public road; the plaintiff then ran into the cow while driving down the road. We carved "wandering animals" out from Bard’s no-negligence rule and allowed the case to proceed because it did not involve a vicious propensity and was thus "fundamentally distinct from the claim made in Bard."

Related articles:
03/24/25: Ohio's Weak Dangerous Dog Laws: 4-Part Investigation by News Organizations
01/13/25: 2023 Unreported Dog Bite Fatality: Family Files Federal Lawsuit After Woman Killed...

Northeast Houston Man Wanted for Murder Now Faces Three Felony Dog Attack Charges after Pit Bull Attack Kills Neighbor

Marshall Garrett is wanted for murder and faces felony dog attack charges after a woman's death.


Dog Owner Faces Felonies
Houston, TX - On April 9, Marshall Garrett, 38, was charged with three counts of felony dog attack resulting in death after his pit bulls killed a woman. The Houston Police Department said 65-year old Harriet Phillips was found dead in the backyard of her home in the 8000 block of Wayside Village Way on March 23. Three "Staffordshire-mixes" belonging to Garrett broke through a shared fence between the homes. Garrett did not witness the deadly attack but realized what happened and called 911.

The primary cause of death was "multiple blunt and sharp force injuries," according to the medical examiner. The manner of death was an accident. All three dogs were euthanized. At that time, no charges had been filed. On April 8, Garrett was charged with murder in connection to an unrelated death. The next day, he was charged with three felony dog attack counts. Online court records show that Garrett has an extensive criminal history dating back to 2005, including multiple felony charges.

KPRC obtained photographs of Garrett's damaged backyard fence and his three pit bulls: Boosie, Sophie and Cleo. The three felony dog attack charges -- one per dog -- were filed because Garrett failed to fix his damaged fenced to keep his dogs from accessing his neighbor's yard. Garrett's negligence resulted in her death. KPRC reports the murder charge stems from a person's death in October 2024. Garrett is "still wanted," not in police custody, and has a history of evading arrest.

Murder Victim Identified

KTRK reports that a surveillance camera on Phillips' house captured the victim trying to fend off the dogs with a hammer in her backyard. She is heard yelling, "Help! Help!" before she falls to the ground and is mauled. Earlier in the day, neighbors texted Garrett, alerting him that his dogs were digging holes under the fence and entering Phillips' property. Records obtained by KTRK show that Garrett responded with a text saying, "about to get it resolved." Hours later, Phillips was killed by his dogs.

At the time of the dog attack, Garrett was out of jail on bond for felony evading police. That case was filed January 11, 2025. He bonded out on January 13. The murder charge stems from a violent beating outside of a Family Dollar store in northeast Houston. Garrett is a co-defendant. A female suspect, Latrecia Washington, is also wanted. Garrett struck 69-year old Alton Martin in the back of the head with a blunt instrument, causing his death. The altercation stemmed from a dispute over $140.

Unintelligent Commenters

Several comments on the KPRC article stand out. Despite Garrett being charged with murder, three counts of dog attack causing death and having an "extensive criminal history" -- he is a criminal and a bad dog owner -- "Leslie" felt the need to "promote the breed" by talking about her "most affectionate" Staffordshire "ever" that lived "with two other dogs and cats and there was NEVER a problem." Though, one of her new pit bulls "is still learning who is alpha" and is animal-aggressive.

By the pit bull fan club's own logic, her comment is absurd. "Earth to Leslie," save your comment for when a "good" owner's pit bull attacks unprovoked.

But the next commenter, "Wayne" the troll, falls into a diabolical realm. He asks, "Where's the crime?" Then states, "Unlike guns, dogs are NOT inanimate objects ... These dogs acted on their own, and to charge their owner is beyond something I'm able to wrap my mind around." He next says, "I promise they weren't plotting and scheming on the woman." Wayne states that charging the owner "who wasn't even present" is a "miscarriage of justice." As if involuntary criminal offenses are nonexistent.

Wayne derails into unintelligence further. "I don't recall the owner of the tiger who attacked Roy being charged. So why this?" he asked. Well, because Siegfried & Roy, the famous animal-based magic show duo, owned the tiger that attacked Roy. There is no criminality when your own animal attacks you, be it in your home or on a Las Vegas stage in front of an audience. Wayne doesn't accept the concept of criminal negligence when a dog busts through its owner's fence and kills an innocent person.

wanted for murder felony dog attack charges

A man wanted for murder in northeast Houston is also facing three felony dog attack charges.

Related articles:
10/08/24: 2024 Dog Bite Fatality: Babysitter's XL Pit Bulls Kill Baby, Attack Teenager Inside Home
09/20/24: Prosecution Closing Arguments In Fatal Dog Attack Trial; Judge Issues Sentences

2024 Dog Bite Fatality: 1st Degree Felony Indictment Against Ohio Parents After Family Pit Bull Kills Infant

The parents of an infant killed by their pit bull in April 2024 face a 1st degree felony indictment.


Parents Charged with Felonies
Marion, OH - On Monday, Marion County prosecutors announced a felony indictment against the parents of an infant who was killed by a family pit bull on April 28, 2024. Until Monday, this fatal dog attack had not been reported to the public by media or police. The Marion County grand jury charged Blake Bates and Alyssa Smith with involuntary manslaughter, child endangering, and reckless homicide. Each defendant faces up to 11 to 16.5 years in prison if convicted on all counts.

The indictment comes five days after a mother and son in Pickaway County, Ohio were sentenced to prison after being convicted of involuntary manslaughter after their two pit bulls with a history of violence killed their neighbor. Susan and Adam Withers were sentenced to 14 to 19.5 years each, the maximum allowable, in connection to the death of Jo Echelbarger. In March, Echelbarger's family was featured in a 4-part investigation series by media outlets examining Ohio's weak dangerous dog laws.

The indictment comes two months after a father in Hamilton County, Ohio was indicted on the same charges. Warren Houston was charged with involuntary manslaughter, child endangering, and reckless homicide. On December 27, Houston woke up and found his young daughter -- who had been staying with him for the "first time" -- "completely torn apart" by his two "terrier-mix" dogs. He told 911, "I just woke up and my daughter is dead. There's blood everywhere, I don't know what happened."

Ray Grogan Marion County Prosecutor's Office
April 7, 2025

MARION COUNTY PROSECUTOR RAY GROGAN ANNOUNCES INDICTMENT AGAINST PARENTS IN FATAL DOG ATTACK OF INFANT CHILD

MARION, OHIO — The Marion County Grand Jury has brought felony charges against Blake Bates and Alyssa Smith, the parents involved in the death of their infant due to a vicious dog attack. The incident occurred on April 28, 2024, at the couple’s home on Miami Street in Marion.

The Marion County Grand Jury charged Blake Bates and Alyssa Smith with Involuntary Manslaughter, Child Endangering, and Reckless Homicide.

Both Defendants were arraigned today on the charges. Smith is being held on a $50,000 bond and Bates is being held on a $100,000 bond.

Grogan and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mark R. Weaver will prosecute these two defendants.

The case will be heard by Common Pleas Court Judge Todd Anderson. Each of the defendants faces up to 11 to 16 ½ years in prison if convicted on all counts.

Anyone who lives in the Miami Street area and has information about previous aggressive behavior of the family’s pit bull “Kilo” should contact Marion Police Lt. Dylan Reese.

All defendants who are charged with crimes, including these defendants, have a legal presumption of innocence until and unless convicted.

The fatal mauling of 6-month old Royal Bates occurred on April 28, 2024 at the parent's home in the 500 block of Miami Street. Despite the indictment already backed by evidence, the prosecutor's office is asking for help to identify other aggressive acts committed by "Kilo," the couple's male pit bull. "Anyone who lives in the Miami Street area and has information about previous aggressive behavior of the family’s pit bull “Kilo” should contact Marion Police Lt. Dylan Reese," the release says.

Marion County Prosecutor Ray Grogan said that a year before the dog killed the infant, Kilo attacked a neighbor's child, but no corrective action was taken. “When you have a dog in any instance that demonstrates aggressive behavior towards a human being, you have to take steps to either one put that dog down or ensure that the dog isn’t going to have access to do real harm to somebody, particularly a child,” Grogan said. “When you don’t do that, there are consequences for that,” he said.

Kilo was euthanized after the attack, authorities said. Online research of the mother's Facebook page shows there were at least three other pit bulls in the home, possibly offspring of Kilo. Multiple pit bulls remained in the home after Royal was killed. In January 2025, 10 months after Royal's death, the mother announced on Facebook she was looking for a "forever" home for one of the six pit bull-mix dogs in her home. "I just can't do it by myself anymore with 6 dogs I would keep them all if I could."

Bonds and Law & Crime Episode

Notably, Bates is being held in jail on a much higher bond than Smith, because Bates was already incarcerated for separate felony crimes when the fatal dog mauling felony indictment came down. On January 29, 2025, Bates was charged with "strangulation," a 3rd degree felony, after a domestic violence incident. A jury trial is set for June. On February 26, 2025, Bates was charged with "escape," also a 3rd degree felony in Ohio, after attempting to escape from the domestic violence charges.

On Monday, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mark R. Weaver appeared on a Law & Crime episode about the baby's mauling death (4:35). Weaver spoke about the circumstances around the attack. At approximately 10:48 am, the infant was under the care of his 8-year old sister in the living room. The father was outside, and the mother was in the bathroom, Weaver said. Royal rolled off the couch, and Kilo attacked him, ripping open his skull (6:58). This, horrifically, goes on for some period of time.

"The horrific facts about how this played out is that the mom and the dad are out of the room. The dad is somewhere outside. The mother may have been taking a shower. They left the six-month-old in the care of an eight-year-old child, the other child in the house. Some how or way the baby rolls off the couch.

In that moment the dog grasps and begins biting -- this is horrible -- the baby's head, the baby's skull. It takes a while for when the adults are finally back in the room to get the dog off the baby. Of course, 911 was called and heroic efforts were made to save this baby's life. It did not succeed.

As a result, they have been indicted for involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide." - Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mark R. Weaver

Weaver said the year-long investigation prior to the felony indictment concentrated on the dog's history. Confirming previous acts of aggression the parents knew of make them more culpable. Police interviewed friends, family members and neighbors, including neighbors that had moved away. Police learned that in the months leading up to the attack, Kilo had gone after a neighborhood child and the dog warden was called. As the press release states, police are still seeking information about Kilo.

Weaver also questioned the owner's mentality and breed of dog. "Only the people closest to the husband and wife will be able to tell us what the mentality of the owners was," he said (9:35). "Why would you want to have a pit bull? You could have had a poodle. You could have had a lab. Why a pit bull?" he asked. "The defendants don't have to testify. If they take the stand, I'll be asking them why they chose this breed and why they treated this dog in a way that would make it more vicious."

Both Marion and Pickaway counties are close to Columbus. So is Union County, where three weeks ago, the self-appointed "dog whisperer," Steffen Baldwin, was sentenced to 15.5 years in prison after being convicted of fraud, abuse, theft and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. Baldwin had risen to fame in the no-kill sphere by secretly killing dangerous pit bulls he was supposed to be "magically" rehabilitating. As we write this post, another baby has been killed by a family pit bull in Columbus.

felony indictment pit bull mauling death in Ohio

Kilo, the male pit bull responsible for killing infant Royal Bates, seen on Facebook. The baby's parents now face a felony indictment of involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide.

felony indictment pit bull mauling death in Ohio

The baby's parents, Blake Bates and Alyssa Smith, allegedly had knowledge their male pit bull, Kilo, had a history of aggression prior to the dog ripping open the infant's skull, killing him.

map iconView the DogsBite.org Google Map: Ohio Fatal Pit Bull Maulings.

Related articles:
03/24/25: Ohio's Weak Dangerous Dog Laws: 4-Part Investigation by News Organizations
04/02/25: 2024 Dog Bite Fatality: Ohio Woman and Dog Killed by Vicious Dogs in Ashville
03/13/25: Unmasking a Con: How a Pit Bull Activist Rose to Fame in the No-Kill Community...
02/12/25: 2024 Dog Bite Fatality: 3-Year Old Girl Killed by Dogs While Visiting Father in Cincinnati


Baseline reporting requirements:
Law enforcement departments across the United States should release consistent "baseline" information to the media and the public after each fatal dog mauling, including these items.

Ohio's Weak Dangerous Dog Laws: 4-Part Investigation by Collaboration of News Organizations

New Legislation is Already Being Crafted

Ohios weak dangerous dog laws
A stunning and powerful 4-part investigation into Ohio's weak dangerous dog laws.

Part 1: Dog Laws Fail Victims
Columbus, OH - In early March, a 4-part investigation was published by a collaboration of news agencies after a 9-month investigation of Ohio's dangerous dog attacks and weak state laws. The Cincinnati Enquirer, Columbus Dispatch, Akron Beacon Journal and Canton Repository all participated: "We interviewed nearly 60 victims, family members, lawyers, pediatricians, dog wardens, lawmakers and others and submitted more than 50 public records requests to agencies across the state."

Governor DeWine said in response, he has "every confidence this legislature" will take this up "because the story was very compelling."

The interviews and records revealed that state law does not mandate euthanasia of a vicious dog until it kills a second human, and even after severe maulings, dog owners typically pay a fine that is akin to a traffic ticket. Their legal team also sued the Village of Ashville in the Ohio Court of Claims to apply pressure to the police department to release bodycam footage of officers responding to the fatal attack of Jo Ann Echelbarger, 73, last October. This is why the public has access to the video.

Part 1 summarizes the multitude of failures leading up to the fatal mauling of Echelbarger. The two pit bulls involved, Apollo and Echo, had a history of attacks, Apollo had been declared "dangerous" a year earlier, and the condo association had obtained a court order forcing the removal of both dogs six weeks before the attack, but never enforced it. For three months beforehand, the Withers' front door deadlock was stuffed with a white rag, rendering the door useless in keeping the dogs confined.

As Echelbarger bent down to work in her flower bed, the two dogs exited the Withers' home and viciously attacked her. The dogs tore off her scalp and broke her neck as her husband, who has Parkinson's disease, watched behind a screen door, unable to help. In February, the dogs' owners, Adam and his mother Susan Withers, were convicted of felony involuntary manslaughter. Both had been locked up in the Pickaway County Jail since October 31, each held on a $500,000 bond.

Part 1 introduces other parts of the series. It examines the attacks of Michael Palmer, Eva Simons, Amriel Wilkinson and Avery Russell; each are part of the video segment. Part 1 also addresses the 2014 fatal mauling of Klonda Richey -- another case with a multitude of failures. Klonda had filed 13 complaints with animal control and made 46 calls to a dispatch center about her neighbor's dogs before they killed her. Legislative reforms have been introduced since, but none have succeeded.

Amputation, Measly Pay Out

In 2022, Eva Simons, 66, was attacked by three pit bulls when she stopped her bike after getting a flat tire in Vinton County. She tried to fend them off to no avail. "I made a decision while it was happening. In order to save the rest of me, I just had to let them have the leg," Simons said. The day after the attack, the dog owners went trick-or-treating while surgeons cut off her leg. "That was painful to know,” she said. “While I was still fighting for my life in the hospital, they just went on with their life."

She estimates her medical bills, most of which were covered by insurance, came close to $1 million. The owner of the dogs paid $682 in fines and court costs. Simons sued the landlord who rented the home to the dog owners. She was successful in her pursuit, but the insurance policy capped liability coverage at $100,000. After attorney’s fees and paying back some medical bills, she was left with $46,000. "This is the only compensation I have received for the loss of my left leg," Simons said.

Other than a small fine, there was no accountability, she said. "There was nothing stopping them from getting another pack of dogs and doing the same thing." What Simons is referring to is the "vicious dog owner loop." After a grisly attack, the dog owner puts the dog down, acquires a new dog and the process starts all over again. The only way to break the loop after a damaging attack is to increase penalties for repeat offenders and ban them from owning or harboring dogs after multiple violations.

Some of the Ohio victims and their family members plan on talking to state lawmakers about reforming dangerous dog laws. They seek a felony dog attack law and euthanasia for dogs after their first serious attack. Avery's mother, Drew Russell, hired Columbus attorney Bill Patmon III for this pursuit, whose father years ago sponsored the bill to make animal cruelty a felony. Russell said that if we don't try to affect some kind of change, the suffering will continue. "It’s just going to keep happening."

Part 2 - The Story of Avery Russell

The video segment in part 2 depicts the story of Avery Russell from the moment the Reynoldsburg police arrive at the scene on June 11, 2024, through her heartbreaking process of recovery. When her mother Drew Russell arrived at the trauma unit after the attack, she said, "Nothing could have prepared me for what I saw." Avery's face was described as looking like "ground hamburger" after two pit bulls destroyed it. The doctors sewed her face back together. Avery still needs new ears and a new nose.

On the day of the attack, Drew dropped Avery off in the morning at Kiera's house, a classmate, then headed to work. Kiera's mother, Jessica Henry, called Drew that afternoon to tell her she was taking the girls to her cousin’s house in Reynoldsburg. Drew did not know there were four pit bulls at the home, nor did she know that two of Henry's children had been bitten by these dogs, including a bite to the face, less than a year earlier. One of the two pit bulls that attacked Avery is still alive.

Currently, under Ohio's dangerous dog laws, euthanizing a dog is not mandated until its killed a second persion. "That's crazy," Drew said.

Drew had to close her nail salon so she could devote all of her time to care for Avery. There is an endless stream of medical appointments, including physical, occupational, speech, and trauma. Avery is working towards regaining her basketball skills too. She still faces years of surgical procedures, medical treatments and rehabilitation. Avery is currently 11 years old. Her mother hopes she'll look "somewhat normal" by the time high school starts, "because that's when kids get the meanest."

Back in 2014, the same year Klonda Richey was killed by her neighbor's dogs, 6-year old Zainabou Drame suffered "unimaginable" injuries after being attacked by two pit bulls. The dogs ripped off her jaw, most of her teeth and tongue. Her attack brought the Cincinnati area to their knees and came two years after Ohio lawmakers repealed the state law that declared pit bulls "vicious," and replaced it with a convoluted, weak law, with the intent to de-regulate pit bulls, which remains law today.

Part 3 - The Story of Michael Palmer

Michael Palmer was attacked by his neighbor's pit bull when he visited her home in December 2022. He said that after she invited him in, he opened the screen door and the dog flew at him. The dog tore off his ears, thumbs, and index finger and part of this nose. In the video, a deputy is seen in the snow-covered yard trying to reach him. The pit bull is actively attacking Palmer when the deputy open fires on the dog, sending it scurrying away. The dog, "Piper," had previously attacked two other people.

Palmer spent nearly three months in hospitals undergoing multiple surgeries. He faces more in the future. He only has limited use of his hands now. He can't work as a machinist, play guitar or grasp small items. Currently, Palmer is suing the landlord, Kenneth Grable, alleging he had knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities but failed to take any action. Grable is the landlord of both Palmer and the dog's owner, Wendy Trippet. A jury trial is forthcoming in Summit County Common Pleas Court.1

The video segment shows Palmer holding up his hands. Large knobs are seen in place of his thumbs, and his right hand only has three fingers.

Palmer had initially sued Trippet too, but she was dismissed from the lawsuit without prejudice. Neither she nor Grable have liability insurance. Thus far, Grable is representing himself. He said he doesn't understand how he can be culpable. "How can somebody be guilty of something I had nothing to do with?" he asked. But dogbitelaw.com notes that in Ohio, “[A] harborer is one who has possession and control of the premises where the dog lives and silently acquiesces to the dog’s presence.”

Palmer said he doesn't like going out in public. "I go to stores and people stare," he said. He prefers to go out at night, when his injuries are less visible. He also suffers panic attacks when he hears keys and coins rattling, sounds that mimic a dog chain (Piper was also kept on a chain in Trippet's yard). "I see shadows of dogs all the time," he added. Palmer has been living with his mother in Lakemore since the attack, but she has a 180-pound rottweiler. Palmer said he often sleeps on friends' couches.

Part 4 - Dog Wardens Want Harsher Penalties

The last part hears the perspective of dog wardens. Reporters interview Licking County Chief Dog Warden Larry Williams and Assistant Dog Warden Jeremy Grant. In the video, Williams states, "We are a creature of statute." Dog wardens have police authority within the 955 statute pertaining to Ohio's dog laws, such as dogs at large, licensing and designations. Wardens can also be armed. Grant carries a firearm, taser and handcuffs and wears a vest. In his 11-year career, he's been shot at twice.

One of the duties of a warden is to follow up on owners of dogs declared "dangerous." The owner must muzzle the dog when off-property, post a visible warning sign, and buy an annual dangerous dog tag. The dangerous designation can be assigned after an unprovoked attack on a person or killing a pet dog. But not all dog wardens are the same. As seen in the Echelbarger case, Pickaway County Dog Warden Preston Schumacher has been sued by her estate for misconduct and failure of duty.

The Warden's Office and the Dog Warden "knew that the Withers' front door deadlock was stuffed with a white rag since at least July 2024, rendering the door useless in keeping Apollo and Echo confined," and "knew the Withers repeatedly, serially" and publicly flouted the dangerous dog requirements, states the lawsuit.

"Indeed, the Warden's Office and Dog Wardens were so utterly incompetent that when they attempted to bring charges against the Withers, they did so under the wrong revised code sections and failed to submit evidence, resulting in the dismissal and release of the dogs into The Reserve months prior to Jo Ann's death." 2

The Ohio County Dog Wardens Association (OCDWA) has a "wish list" for state law changes, including: establish statewide training standards for wardens; clarify the police powers of wardens; increase penalties for attacks causing serious injuries; require euthanasia of dogs deemed vicious; create a statewide database of dangerous dog designations and persons convicted of animal abuse; provide state funding for dog shelters; and require shelters to spay and neuter dogs before adoption.

Ohio Legislative Session

Legislators in Ohio begin their session in early January and it runs through December 31. Only a handful states have a 12-month legislative cycle each year. Sessions in most states end in May. This means that bills move more slowly in Ohio. There are no filing deadlines or chamber cross over deadlines either -- both help funnel promising bills towards the finish line. However, there's no better funnel than a mandate by the governor to prioritize certain legislation, as DeWine recently did.

Governor DeWine, who took office in 2019, is term-limiting out in 2026. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost is running for governor in 2026. "Your pet choice is not as important as the lives of the people that have been attacked. I’m for treating this as a serious criminal offense," Yost told the Columbus Dispatch. Yost believes criminal penalties could be crafted that are similar to motor vehicle laws, such as serious injury and involuntary manslaughter statutes that apply to reckless vehicle operators.3

Legislation Background

The dangerous dog law that exists in Ohio today was drafted by an out-of-state animal rights PAC, whose mission was 2-fold: repeal the state law declaring pit bulls "vicious" and make it nearly impossible for prosecutors to pursue felony charges after a vicious attack. HB 14 was promoted as a bill that would “finally give dog wardens the tools to deal with dangerous dogs.” It went into effect May 2012. By May 2014, three months after Klonda was killed, it became clear the bill was a sham.

"For instance, in Ohio, documents obtained through a public records request show that Best Friends drafted the legislation that altered Ohio’s Dangerous Dog statue in 2012. The bill written by Best Friends was sold to members of the Ohio Legislature as 'finally giving dog wardens the tools to deal with dangerous dogs.' In reality the law de-regulated pit bulls (the intent of the writers) and set up unworkable procedures that protected dangerous dogs and their irresponsible owners."4

But it gets worse. At the time of Klonda's death, Mark Kumpf was the Montgomery County Dog Warden. Klonda's estate sued Kumpf and Montgomery County afterward for his "willful disregard for his statutory duties." Not only was there a laundry list of complaints by Klonda about her neighbor’s dogs leading up to her death, of which Kumpf took no action upon, we learned during the litigation that Kumpf and his department destroyed key evidence. The case was settled for $3.5 million dollars.

Thus, in just a two-year time span, the defective bill, HB 14, falsely promoted as a way to "finally give dog wardens the tools to deal with dangerous dogs," and strongly supported by Dog Warden Mark Kumpf, the true colors of the sham bill and Kumpf's negligence became known. By May of 2014, a revised dangerous dog bill was introduced to overcome the deficiencies of HB 14 because it lacked legal tools for prosecutors to bring felony charges against the owners of the dogs that killed Klonda.

In the investigation by news agencies about Ohio's weak dog laws, Matt Granito, the Geauga County Dog Warden, states, "We’re tired of seeing these kids get torn up, and then just saying, well, we gotta wait. We gotta wait and when it gets loose again, we can do something ... We got to get them in court on the first bite and say 'what are you going to do to fix this problem?'" That is a far cry from what Granito testified to in 2011, standing beside Kumpf, that HB 14 would ensure "community safety."

Summary

The 4-part investigation by a collaboration of Ohio news agencies is illustrative, informative and urgent. Legislation attempts to fix the defective 2012 law began in earnest in 2014 and lasted through 2019. Key items in these bills are similar to what victims seek today, including: felony charges for owners of dogs after certain attacks, euthanasia for dogs after a first violent attack, establishing a registry for dangerous dogs and establishing requirements for the training of dog wardens.

The violence of the attacks profiled in this investigation are reinforced by the police bodycam videos -- an attack cannot be depicted with more urgency. The permanence of their injuries was also profiled up close. Each victim sustained lifelong injuries and civil recourse was absent, poor or undisclosed. Both Palmer and Amriel's huge medical bills were paid by Ohio Medicaid -- taxpayers. Amriel is the only victim thus far who likely secured a meaningful settlement from the dog owner's insurance company.

Governor DeWine is correct to say, "We clearly have to do something. We have to hold people more accountable." The remarks from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who is running for governor in 2026, are also promising. “I’m for treating this as a serious criminal offense," Yost said, just like we hold "people accountable for what happens to their cars." Ohio should join the 16 other states that have a felony dog attack law that does not require the dog to be legally "classified" beforehand.

Ohios weak dangerous dog laws

In front of this officer are four things: a bloody canine homicide scene; a horrifically mauled woman, including the back of her scalp being ripped off from ear to ear; the active pit bull culprit; and a husband screaming behind a screen door, "That's my wife!" When the officer finally did fire on the attacking dog, it took 5 bullets to kill it. Watch the bodycam video.

1As of March 19, 2025, Grable had engaged in defense counsel, and Wendy Trippett was back in the lawsuit -- Michael Palmer v. Wendy Trippett, et al, Case No. CV-2023-05-1404, Summit County Court of Common Pleas (clerkweb.summitoh.net)
2Estate of Jo Ann Echelbarger v. Withers, The Reserve at Ashton Village, et al., Case No. 2025CI0064, Common Pleas Court Pickaway County, March 12, 2025 (eservices.pickawaycountycourts.com)
3The last legislation introduced came from Rep. Niraj Antani (R-Miamisburg). In 2019, while talking about his legislation, Antani said, "I believe that if a person attacks you and injures you or kills you it is a felony, it should be no different for a dog. It should be no different than vehicular manslaughter."
4What To Expect If Your Community Is Discussing Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL), Edition 1, May 15, 2016 (daxtonsfriends.com)

Related articles:
03/12/25: 2024 Dog Bite Fatality: Ohio Woman and Dog Killed by Vicious Dogs in Ashville
03/03/20: Settlement Reached; Lawsuit Against Former Dog Warden and Montgomery County to Close