2023 Ohio 1293
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- On Aug. 13, 2019, Williams was walking on a public sidewalk outside a duplex when a dog on a leash in the duplex’s front yard startled him; he tripped on the curb and broke his ankle but the dog never made contact.
- Williams sued under R.C. 955.28 (strict liability for owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog) and common law against the dog owner (Buchner) and the landlord/property owner (Seeley).
- Seeley rented the downstairs unit to Buchner, never lived at the duplex, permitted dogs on the premises, required tenants to care for their dogs, and did not perform routine yard maintenance; the upstairs tenant had yard-maintenance responsibility.
- Seeley moved for summary judgment arguing he was not the dog’s owner/keeper/harborer; Williams opposed, focusing on harborship; the trial court granted summary judgment for Seeley on the statutory claim.
- Williams appealed only the statutory R.C. 955.28(B) claim; the Eighth District affirmed, holding Seeley was not a harborer because he lacked possession and control of the premises where the dog lived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Seeley was a "harborer" under R.C. 955.28(B) | Seeley permitted dogs on the property and allowed the dog to be at the premises, so he can be deemed to have harbored the dog | Seeley was an out-of-possession landlord who did not possess or control the yard or common areas; tenants shared possession and control | Court: Seeley not a harborer; summary judgment for Seeley affirmed |
| Whether the dog’s actions proximately caused Williams’s injury | The dog startled Williams and thereby proximately caused him to trip and break his ankle | The dog was leashed, did not contact Williams or enter public sidewalk, so there was no proximate cause | Majority resolved case on harborer ground; concurring opinion agreed alternatively that proximate cause was lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckett v. Warren, 921 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio 2010) (establishes statutory strict-liability framework under R.C. 955.28)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 671 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment standard described)
- Hirschauer v. Davis, 126 N.E.2d 337 (Ohio 1955) (elements required in an action under the dog statute)
- Vallejo v. Haynes, 124 N.E.3d 322 (Ohio 2018) (distinguishes owner, keeper, and harborer concepts)
- Brown v. Terrell, 114 N.E.3d 783 (Ohio 2018) (landlord’s mere permission for pets does not alone show possession and control)
- H.W. v. Young, 153 N.E.3d 807 (Ohio 2020) (discusses harborer definition and landlord liability in rental contexts)