Jones v. Holmes
2013 Ohio 448
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Jones sued Holmes and Moon for dog-bite injuries arising from a pit bull attack on the morning of July 29, 2010.
- Moon owned the pit bull and arrived at Holmes' residence with the dog in the middle of the night; Holmes was asleep at that time.
- The next morning, Jones's dog Buddy was attacked while on the sidewalk across from Holmes' home; Jones sustained injuries and Buddy required veterinary care.
- Holmes was at work during the attack, and Moon and Glass were the dog’s apparent hosts; Holmes did not care for the dog.
- The trial court found Moon strictly liable under R.C. 955.28 and held Holmes not liable as keeper/harborer; Jones appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holmes was a harborer under R.C. 955.28 | Jones contends Holmes harbored the dog due to possession/control of premises and acquiescence. | Holmes did not harbor the dog; the dog did not regularly live at her premises; she lacked control. | Holmes was not a harborer; judgment affirmed on harborer issue |
| Whether the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence | Jones asserts the harborer finding was against the weight of the evidence. | Holmes argues the evidence supported the harborer finding. | Judgment not against the manifest weight; affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- Flint v. Holbrook, 80 Ohio App.3d 21 (Ohio App.3d 1992) (harborer focus on possession/control of premises)
- Hirschauer v. Davis, 163 Ohio St.105 (1955) (elements of strict liability under dog-bite statute)