Morris v. Cordell
2015 Ohio 4342
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Morris was injured when a dog (owned by Kristi Cordell) ran from 3839 Mantell Avenue, engaged Morris’s leashed dog, and Morris fell, injuring his knee.
- Cordell lived at the Mantell Avenue single‑family house with her children and dogs; the Langs (her aunt and uncle) owned the house and had an oral arrangement for Cordell to pay rent and utilities.
- Cordell performed routine care of the property and paid some maintenance; the Langs paid taxes and major repairs and visited occasionally to help with children and dogs, entering only with Cordell’s permission.
- Morris sued Cordell and the Langs alleging owner/keeper/harborer liability under R.C. 955.28; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Langs; Morris later dismissed claims against Cordell and appealed.
- The central factual dispute was whether the Langs had possession or control of the premises (or otherwise acquiesced) so as to be a “harborer” of the dog; Langs had no keys and did not live at the property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Langs were owners, keepers, or harborers of the dog under R.C. 955.28 | Morris: familial arrangement, lack of written lease, nonpayment of rent, and Langs’ active assistance show possession/control and acquiescence | Langs: Cordell owned the dog; Cordell had exclusive possession/control of the single‑family home; Langs entered only with permission and did not control premises | Court: Langs were not owners or keepers; no evidence they owned dog; not present at incident; not keepers |
| Whether summary judgment for Langs was proper | Morris: disputed factual issues exist about control/harboring that preclude summary judgment | Langs: undisputed facts show Cordell had exclusive control; no common/shared areas; Langs entitled to judgment as a matter of law | Court: No genuine issue of material fact; reasonable minds only one conclusion—Langs not harborers; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary‑judgment de novo review)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary‑judgment standard)
- Warner v. Wolfe, 176 Ohio St. 389 (strict liability for dog‑caused injuries)
- Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Robison, 5 Ohio App.3d 223 (strict liability principles applied)
- Flint v. Holbrook, 80 Ohio App.3d 21 (harborer inquiry focuses on control of premises)