The Oklahoma Bar Journal September 2025

the defendants to be “owners” for purposes of strict liability under 4 O.S. §42.1, as the Hampton court decided, but it is an import ant example of an appellate court rejecting a property owner’s “not my dog” defense. should use common sense if they receive any complaint or concern about a potentially aggressive, vicious, dangerous or menacing animal being kept at any of their properties. Each situation may be unique, but there is no excuse for allowing a tenant or anyone else to keep a dog or another animal that has demonstrated any potentially harmful behavior or disposition. PRACTICAL APPLICATION First, all property owners

animals pursuant to written lease provisions. The court also rec ognized that the defendants had notice from animal control officers that the subject dog was known to leave their property due to a lack of fencing. The defendants did pur chase an enclosure for the dog, but they were notified that it was not kept in the enclosure or restrained with a chain that would have kept it on their property. Additionally, the enclosure was not big enough to keep the dog controlled on a long-term basis, and it was placed in an area that made it easy for the dog to escape. Based upon all the evidence, the court ruled that a jury would decide the pedestrian’s general negligence allegations. The Wishon court did not deem

against the property owner for the child’s injuries and prominent scar ring that will be visible on her face for the rest of her life. RECENT APPELLATE DECISION A recent opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals ( Wishon v. Hammond ) also involved allegations about inadequate fencing and other negligent acts against a property owner for inju ries caused by a tenant’s dog. 9 In Wishon , a pedestrian was attacked as he walked past a property where the owners allowed a tenant to keep a pit bull/mastiff mix. One of the factors referenced in this opinion is the defendants’ pro hibiting all the tenants at differ ent properties from keeping any

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.

38 | SEPTEMBER 2025

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL