Olmstead v. Forsthoefel
2013 Ohio 220
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Dakota Olmstead, a nearly nine-year-old foster child, was bitten on the face by the family dog Shadow after interacting with Shadow at the foster home.
- Plaintiffs sued for statutory dog-bite liability under R.C. 955.28 and for common-law negligence.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting the statutory exception for teasing/tormenting the dog, and lack of evidence of vicious propensities.
- Dakota admitted pulling the dog’s ears; defendants argued this showed teasing/tormenting, triggering the exception.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on both the statutory and common-law claims, holding Dakota’s conduct constituted teasing/tormenting and the tender-years defense did not apply.
- Appellants appeal, challenging the grant of summary judgment on the statutory claim and arguing issues of fact regarding teasing/tormenting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether teasing/tormenting is a factual dispute fit for jury resolution | Olmsteads contention that facts create a jury question | Forsthoefels contends the evidence shows teasing/tormenting as a matter of law | No; court held no genuine issue and granted summary judgment |
| Whether a tender years defense absolves liability | Dakota’s age precludes liability as a matter of law | Tender years defense applies only to very young children; Dakota far older than that | No; court held Dakota not within tender-years exception; can be held liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Quellos v. Quellos, 96 Ohio App.3d 31 (8th Dist.1994) (teasing defined as persistent annoyance)
- Ramsey v. King, 14 Ohio App.3d 138 (12th Dist.1984) (tender-years analysis; three-year-old not capable of teasing)
- Linder v. Am. Natl. Ins. Co., 155 Ohio App.3d 30 (1st Dist.2003) (uses case to address summary judgment rebuttal in evidence)