2015
Brown v. FMW RRI NC LLC, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-953, 2015-Ohio-4192. Plaintiff’s dog was attacked by another dog who was owned by a guest staying at Defendant’s (RRI) hotel. RRI is a pet friendly hotel. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant, but the appellate court reversed stating that a jury could come to the conclusion that Defendant was a harborer of their guest’s dog.
2013
Kircher v. Baugess, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA201-03-006, 2013-Ohio-4569. Defendant brought dogs into a pre-veterinary school class to be subjects. Plaintiff was assigned to one of Defendant’s dogs, and the dog bit him. The appellate court ruled in favor of the Defendant since Plaintiff was a “keeper” of the dog, and therefore, could not bring a strict liability claim under 955.28(B). However, the court mentioned that it would be possible for Plaintiff to continue with a negligence claim against Defendant.
2006
Lewis v. Chovan, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-1159, 2006-Ohio-3100. Defendant brought his dog to a groomer where Plaintiff was an employee. Defendant’s dog bit Plaintiff. The court ruled that Defendant was not strictly liable to Plaintiff since Plaintiff was a “keeper” of the dog.
2004
Marin v. Frick, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2003-G-2531, 2004-Ohio-5642. Plaintiff was a friend of Defendant and went to take her dog for a walk. Defendant had to go inside and left Plaintiff with the dog on a leash. The dog got excited by something and pulled Plaintiff to the ground where he was injured. Defendant could not be held strictly liable since Plaintiff was a “keeper” of the dog while Defendant was away.
1999
Manda v. Stratton, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 98-T-0018, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2018 (Apr. 30, 1999). Defendants brought their dog to an animal hospital. The dog was taken to the x-ray machine in another room. Plaintiff was bitten by the dog in the x-ray room. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants, but the appellate court reversed saying that a trier-of-fact should decide whether or not Plaintiff could be considered a “keeper” of the dog.
1996
Johnson v. Allonas, 116 Ohio App. 3d 447, 688 N.E.2d 549 (3rd Dist. 1996). Plaintiff was familiar with Defendant’s dog and took the dog outside to relieve itself. Defendant’s dog went to encounter another dog and, when called back by Plaintiff, Plaintiff got tripped in the leash and was injured. The court ruled in favor of Defendant because Plaintiff was found to be a temporary “keeper” of the dog.
1993
Khamis v. Everson, 88 Ohio App. 3d 220, 623 N.E.2d 683 (2nd Dist. 1993). Defendant took his dog to a kennel. Plaintiff, an employee of the kennel, was bitten by Defendant’s dog. The court ruled that Plaintiff could not recover under R.C. 955.28(B) because he was a “keeper” of the dog.
1992
Flint v. Holbrook, 80 Ohio App. 3d 21, 608 N.E.2d 809 (2nd Dist. 1992). One of the Defendants (Patterson) entered a land contract agreement Holbrook. Holbrook’s dog injured Plaintiff, and the court ruled that Patterson could not be found negligent since he had no control over the property.
1932
Bevin v. Griffiths, 44 Ohio App. 94, 184 N.E. 401 (9th Dist. 1932). Plaintiff was a servant of Defendant. While doing work in the kitchen, Plaintiff was injured by the household dog. Defendant argued that, since Plaintiff cared for the dog, she should be considered a “harborer” of the dog and that, since both Plaintiff and Defendant could be liable to a third party for damage that the dog did, Plaintiff should not be able to recover. The appellate court disagreed because there was no language in the statute that a servant should not be considered a person to whom a right of action is given. Furthermore, since a third party was not injured, the court stated that the notion of joint liability should not be considered.