Ross v. Wendel, 97 N.E.3d 722

In fall 2012, 16‑year‑old Wesley Seitz poached deer; neighbors (including Earnie Ross) reported suspected poaching to ODNR; Wesley was later arrested and admitted poaching.
After the arrest, Mr. Ross frequently drove past the Seitz residence and verbally confronted Wesley; the Seitzes installed a trail camera and disciplined Wesley to some degree.
On December 23, 2012, Wesley (with friend Chad Wendel) intentionally set fire to Mr. Ross’s trucks; Wesley was adjudicated delinquent for the poaching and arson.
The Rosses sued Wesley, Chad, and the Seitzes, asserting parental statutory liability and common‑law claims for negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).
The trial court granted summary judgment for the Seitzes on negligent supervision and dismissed the derivative NIED claim; it also struck portions of proffered affidavits and an IME report. The Rosses proceeded to trial on statutory parental liability, obtained a capped judgment, and the Seitzes paid and filed a satisfaction of judgment.
On appeal the court (majority) affirmed the summary judgment dismissals as to negligent supervision and NIED, holding no genuine issue that the Seitzes knew of a propensity to commit arson or sanctioned it; the court declined to dismiss the appeal as moot because the satisfaction of judgment applied only to the statutory parental‑liability award. Judge Piper dissented, arguing the satisfaction of judgment mooted the appeal under Blodgett.

Issue	Rosses' Argument	Seitzes' Argument	Held
Whether parental negligent supervision claim survives summary judgment	Seitzes knew of Wesley's hostile encounters with Ross, prior poaching, and rifle purchase; better supervision would have prevented arson — creates triable issues	No evidence Seitzes knew Wesley had a propensity to commit arson; poaching and rifle purchase do not reasonably foresee arson	Affirmed for Seitzes: no genuine issue of fact that parents knew or should have known of an arson propensity
Whether NIED claim survives summary judgment	Affidavits and a medical IME show emotional distress from the arson	NIED was derivative of negligent supervision; lacking that claim, NIED fails	Affirmed dismissal: NIED derivative of dismissed negligent supervision claim
Whether appeal is moot due to satisfaction of judgment	Rosses: satisfaction applied only to the statutory parental‑liability judgment paid after trial and does not revive or resolve pretrial dismissed claims	Seitzes: full satisfaction of judgment renders appeal moot under Blodgett; no stay was sought	Majority: appeal not moot as satisfaction only addressed the parental‑liability judgment; dissent: would dismiss appeal as moot under Blodgett

Blodgett v. Blodgett, 49 Ohio St.3d 243 (1990) (satisfaction of judgment ordinarily renders an appeal moot)
Huston v. Konieczny, 52 Ohio St.3d 214 (1990) (parental liability for child’s torts arises where injury is foreseeable from parent’s negligence)
Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (standard for summary judgment review)
Nearor v. Davis, 118 Ohio App.3d 806 (1997) (foreseeability for negligent supervision requires specific prior conduct putting a reasonable person on notice)
Landis v. Condon, 95 Ohio App. 28 (1952) (parental knowledge of vicious propensities is essential for negligent supervision)
Darwish v. Harmon, 91 Ohio App.3d 630 (1992) (satisfaction of judgment may apply only to particular damages and not to other claims)