R.C. 955.28(B) states that “[t]he owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog is liable in damages for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that is caused by the dog, unless the injury, death, or loss was caused to the person or property of an individual who, at the time, was *** teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog on the owner’s, keeper’s, or harborer’s property.” R.C. 955.28 does not provide for the award of punitive damages. Tynan v. Hanlon (1959), 110 Ohio App. 77, 79.  “R.C. 955.28 does not establish negligence per se. Rather, the statute establishes liability without regard to fault or the dog owner’s negligence.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. U.S. Assoc. Realty, Inc. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 242, 246, citing Hirschauer v. Davis (1954), 98 Ohio App. 479, affirmed (1955), 163 Ohio St. 105; Silverglade v. Von Rohr (1923), 107 Ohio St. 75.  “In order to maintain a strict liability cause of action under R.C. 955.28(B), the plaintiff must establish: (1) that the defendant is the owner, keeper or harborer of the dog; (2) that the injury was proximately caused by the dog’s actions; and (3) the monetary amount of the damages.” Bowman v. Stott, 9th Dist. No. 21568, 2003-Ohio-7182, at ¶8, citing Hirschauer v. Davis (1955), 163 Ohio St. 105, paragraph three of the syllabus; Stuper v. Young (May 15, 2002), 9th Dist. No. 20900, at *4.

“Under the common law, a plaintiff suing for damages inflicted by a dog under a theory of general negligence must show: (1) the defendant owned or harbored the dog; (2) the dog was vicious; (3) the defendant knew of the dog’s viciousness; and (4) the defendant was negligent in keeping the dog.” Bowman at ¶19, citing Flint v. Holbrook (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 21, 25-26. Punitive damages may be awarded in a common law action against the dog owner. Rothenbusch-Rhodes, supra, at ¶38, citing Tynan, 110 Ohio App. at 7