Alden v. Dorn
2016 Ohio 554
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On July 4, 2010, Sgt. Dale Dorn (Akron PD K-9 commander) kept a city-owned police dog, Gunny, at his home during a cookout attended by Jarred and Sarah Alden and their two children.
- While the group sat on the patio, Gunny suddenly jumped on and bit the Aldens’ minor child B.A., causing injuries treated with 16 stitches.
- The Aldens sued Sgt. Dorn, Police Chief James Nice, and the City of Akron asserting: strict liability under R.C. 955.28(B), negligence, loss of consortium, and negligent infliction of emotional distress; defendants were sued in official and individual capacities.
- At summary judgment, defendants asserted statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) (and official-capacity immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)); plaintiffs moved for summary judgment as well but did not refute defendants’ immunity arguments.
- The trial court granted defendants’ summary judgment on immunity grounds and denied plaintiffs’ motion; the Aldens appealed.
- The Ninth District affirmed, holding defendants were entitled to immunity and plaintiffs failed to show any statutory exception applied (and that R.C. 955.28(B) does not expressly impose liability on political subdivisions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual defendants are immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) | Alden: statutory immunity inapplicable; defendants who keep/harbor dog are strictly liable under R.C. 955.28(B) | Dorn/Nice: were employees performing governmental function and entitled to immunity absent an applicable exception | Held: Defendants entitled to immunity; plaintiffs did not show any exception applied |
| Whether R.C. 955.28(B) removes political-subdivision immunity | Alden: strict-liability statute imposes liability on anyone who harbors a dog and thus takes conduct outside immunity | Dorn/Nice: R.C. 955.28(B) does not expressly impose civil liability on political subdivisions or their employees | Held: R.C. 955.28(B) does not expressly impose liability on political subdivisions and does not defeat immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary-judgment de novo review and standards)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992) (nonmoving party benefits from facts viewed in their favor on summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (summary-judgment burden-shifting framework for movant and nonmovant)
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (1996) (nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial)