Brown v. FMW RRI NC, L.L.C.
2015 Ohio 4192
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Brown sues for injuries from a pit bull bite; dog owned by Rhone, staying as a guest at Red Roof Inn (RRI).
- RRI is a pet-friendly hotel with a policy allowing pets and no mandatory pet deposits.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, holding RRI not a harborer under R.C. 955.28(B) due to temporary stay.
- Appellate court reviews de novo and construes evidence in Brown’s favor for summary-judgment analysis.
- Court analyzes whether Rhone’s residence at RRI was sufficiently permanent to make RRI a harborer.
- Court reverses and remands, finding a jury could reasonably determine harborer status given evidence of permanency and control of common areas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is RRI a harborer under RC 955.28? | RRI acquiesced to the dog's presence and controlled common areas. | Rhone’s stay was temporary; no harborer relationship. | Issue for jury; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Was Rhone living at the hotel with the dog for harboring purposes? | Rhone’s extended, near-two-month stay shows permanency. | Occupancy was transient; not living there. | Question for jury given evidentiary dispute on permanency. |
| Did RRI have sufficient possession and control of premises to harbor the dog? | RRI controlled common areas and allowed dogs; acquiescence. | Guests have exclusive control of their rooms; premises limited to room occupancy. | Jury question; not decideable as matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hirschauer v. Davis, 163 Ohio St. 105 (Ohio 1955) (harborer elements; questions of fact in dog-bite cases)