Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Avery’s Law proposed to let dog wardens seize attacking animals and require $10,000 insurance

Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee · October 1, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 247, "Avery's Law," would rewrite the dangerous-dog statute, allow immediate seizure of animals that inflict serious injury or death, require a probable-cause hearing within 10 days, impose $10,000 liability insurance for designated dogs and strengthen fencing and confinement rules, sponsors said.

Sponsors presented House Bill 247, known as "Avery's Law," as a rewrite of the existing dangerous- and vicious-dog statute to give local authorities clearer tools to protect the public and victims of dog attacks. The bill is named for Avery Russell, an 11-year-old from Reynoldsburg who was severely mauled in a widely cited attack.

Sponsor testimony described several core changes. The bill would: permit dog wardens to seize animals immediately when they inflict serious injury or death; require a probable-cause hearing within 10 days of a seizure to preserve due process; impose a $10,000 liability-insurance requirement for owners of designated dangerous or vicious dogs; strengthen outdoor fencing and indoor confinement rules when guests are present; and increase licensing fees and penalties for repeat owner offenders. Sponsors emphasized the measure targets repeat irresponsible owners and not owners of dogs that act out unexpectedly.

One sponsoring lawmaker recounted Avery Russell’s attack in detail, describing four pit bulls that mauled the child and the community response that followed. "The dogs were only subdued after the brave intervention of a neighbor, Zachary Ruff," the sponsor said; Reynoldsburg police officers also responded, and one officer fired shots that ultimately killed one dog.

Senators questioned how designations would be made and who would decide designation status. Sponsors said the statute establishes categories (nuisance, dangerous, vicious) tied to specific acts — for example, repeated running at large, causing serious injury without contact, causing serious injury with contact, or death — and that a dog warden may make a designation that can be appealed in court. Sponsors also said civil-designation proceedings could run concurrently with criminal actions when conduct gives rise to both.

The bill was recorded as having its first hearing; sponsors asked for continued committee consideration.