2024 Ohio 1106
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Pamela Dilgard was bitten on the thumb while trying to separate her dog from two dogs owned by Corey McKinniss, who lived alone in a house owned by his grandparents, Arnold and Bonnie McKinniss.
- Corey lived at the property under a landlord-tenant arrangement with his grandfather Arnold, mowing the lawn, shoveling snow, and paying utilities in lieu of formal rent.
- Pamela and Steven Dilgard, the plaintiffs, sued Corey, Arnold, and Bonnie, alleging strict liability and negligence under Ohio’s dog-bite statute and common law theories.
- Arnold and Bonnie moved for summary judgment, arguing they did not have substantial possession or control over the property and thus could not be deemed “harborers” of the dogs as required under Ohio law.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Arnold and Bonnie, and the Dilgards appealed, alleging this was error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arnold and Bonnie were "harborers" of the dogs under R.C. 955.28(B) | Arnold and Bonnie had sufficient control or regular visits indicating control over the premises | Arnold and Bonnie lacked possession and control as they were only landlords; Corey was the sole possessor | Arnold and Bonnie were not harborers; no triable fact issue exists |
| Effect of landlord-tenant status on liability for tenant's dog | Landlords’ visitation and ability to enter implies continuing control | Lease transferred control to Corey; landlord’s right to enter/visit does not confer control | Landlords’ visits and retained rights did not constitute possession/control |
| Relevance of landlords’ knowledge or acquiescence to dogs | Knowledge and lack of prohibition about dogs on premises equates to liability | Mere knowledge or acquiescence not enough for harborer status without day-to-day control | Knowledge/acquiescence insufficient for harborer liability |
| Significance of routine landlord acts (repairs, inspections) | Routine acts combine to establish control over property | Routine acts do not satisfy legal definition of possession/control | Routine landlord acts do not establish possession or control |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckett v. Warren, 124 Ohio St.3d 256, 921 N.E.2d 624 (2010) (explains requirements under R.C. 955.28(B) and common law for owner/keeper/harborer dog bite liability)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 375 N.E.2d 46 (1978) (outlines the standard for granting summary judgment)
- Flint v. Holbrook, 80 Ohio App.3d 21, 608 N.E.2d 809 (1992) (defines ‘harborer’ as someone with possession/control of the premises who acquiesces to dog’s presence)