Perelman v. Meade, 2021 Ohio 4247

Humane Association rescued a Labrador-mix puppy, Piper; the Association arranged vaccinations, microchipping, and contracted with Lebanon Animal Hospital to spay Piper on October 30, 2019 for $75 as a condition of adoption to a third party (B.J.R.).
Piper remained the Humane Association's personal property at the time of the October 2019 spay; B.J.R. returned Piper to the Humane Association in February 2020, and Julie Perelman adopted Piper on February 14, 2020.
After Perelman adopted Piper, the dog showed signs of being in heat; Perelman’s vet (Dr. Goodman) found ovarian remnants in December 2020 and removed them; an abnormal kidney was discovered and a nephrectomy was later performed by Dr. Rowe.
Perelman sued Lebanon Animal Hospital (later adding Paul and Tom Meade) in small claims for $3,214.34 in veterinary expenses, alleging negligent spay surgery; the case was moved to the general civil docket.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Perelman lacked standing/duty, the economic-loss doctrine barred recovery, and Perelman could have returned the dog; the trial court granted summary judgment and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Perelman owed a relationship-based duty enabling a negligence claim	Perelman contends she may recover for vet expenses caused by an improper spay performed before her adoption	Defendants argue there was no duty because the Humane Association (not Perelman) owned Piper and contracted for the spay, so Perelman was not a foreseeable plaintiff	Court: No duty owed to Perelman; she lacked standing as no relationship existed between her and defendants, so negligence claim fails
Whether disputed facts about who performed the spay or whether the spay was improper preclude summary judgment	Perelman says factual disputes exist (which vet performed surgery; spay was improper) that should defeat summary judgment	Defendants contend even if factual disputes exist, they are not material because Perelman cannot show duty/proximate cause as a non-owner at the time	Court: Although factual disputes exist, they are not material—absence of duty is dispositive; summary judgment appropriate
Whether Perelman can raise new legal theories (e.g., third‑party beneficiary/foreseeably vested third‑party) in her reply brief	Perelman argued in reply she was an intended third‑party beneficiary of the Humane Association–hospital contract and thus could sue	Defendants asserted new theories were forfeited because raised first in the reply brief	Court: New legal arguments raised in the reply brief are forfeited and not considered on appeal

Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992) (a defendant's duty depends on relationship and foreseeability of injury to plaintiff)
Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (standards governing summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (1989) (existence of duty is a question of law for the court)
Oberschlake v. Veterinary Assocs. Animal Hosp., 151 Ohio App.3d 741 (2003) (recognizing recovery of veterinary expenses beyond a pet's market value in certain malpractice/medical negligence contexts)