Shaver v. Peters, 2023 Ohio 1097

Plaintiff (B.S., through parents) sued after alleging repeated sexual abuse by neighbor child L.P.; claims against L.P. included assault/battery (not at issue here) and against L.P.’s parents (Le.P. and M.P.) for negligent supervision and spoliation of evidence (iPod).
Depositions: B.S. described multiple incidents over several years; L.P. admitted to a few incidents in 2015 and that he viewed pornography on an older iPod; L.P. and parents testified they first learned of the abuse only after the final incident in May/June 2015.
Parents erased an older iPod’s hard drive before learning of the abuse (to reuse it) and later confiscated a newer iPod after juvenile proceedings; parents say they never turned devices over to law enforcement and deny knowledge of pornographic material relevant to abuse.
Plaintiff argued parents knew or should have known of L.P.’s propensity (prior reported incidents, pornography use, and a counseling note suggesting the mother “suspected” something) and that the parents disposed of or withheld the new iPod to disrupt litigation.
Trial court granted summary judgment to Le.P. and M.P.; on appeal the Sixth District granted leave to supplement the record with plaintiff’s deposition and affirmed the trial court, holding no genuine issue of material fact on foreseeability or willful spoliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Negligent supervision — whether parents knew or should have known of child’s propensity to sexually abuse another child	Parents had notice or constructive notice from prior reports: forced pornography, grabbing, photo, pornography viewing, and a counseling note that mother “suspected something”	Parents did not know of any prior sexual conduct; learned only after final incident; reported facts do not show specific prior acts making abuse foreseeable	Summary judgment for parents—no evidence they knew or should have known of a propensity to sexually abuse other children, so no negligent-supervision liability
Spoliation of evidence — whether parents willfully destroyed or disposed of iPod to disrupt plaintiff’s case	Parents confiscated and later discarded or are withholding the new iPod after litigation became probable, disrupting plaintiff’s ability to prove his case	Parents confiscated device as part of juvenile case; no evidence they willfully destroyed it or that it contained relevant evidence; parents erased old iPod before litigation was probable to reuse it	Summary judgment for parents—plaintiff failed to show willful destruction designed to disrupt litigation or that destruction disrupted his case

Huston v. Konieczny, 52 Ohio St.3d 214, 556 N.E.2d 505 (Ohio 1990) (parental-liability framework: negligent entrustment, failure to control where injury is probable, or knowledge/consent to child’s wrongdoing)
Elms v. Flick, 100 Ohio St. 186, 126 N.E. 66 (Ohio 1919) (general rule that parents are not ordinarily liable for child’s torts)
Kuhns v. Brugger, 390 Pa. 331, 135 A.2d 395 (Pa. 1957) (foreseeability as basis for parental liability)
Nearor v. Davis, 118 Ohio App.3d 806, 694 N.E.2d 120 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (foreseeability requires specific prior instances putting a reasonable person on notice)
Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 615 N.E.2d 1037 (Ohio 1993) (recognizing tort for interference with or destruction of evidence and listing its elements)
Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1996) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 375 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio 1978) (summary judgment standards)
Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts., 61 Ohio App.3d 127, 572 N.E.2d 198 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989) (summary judgment review standard)