Background
On October 6, 2020, L.H., a minor, was bitten on the face by a dog at a playground inside Oakwood Village, a manufactured-home community owned by Sun Secured Financing, L.L.C. The dog belonged to Beth Ann Lake, a resident of the community. Lake’s son had tied the dog by its leash to a swing set at the playground when L.H. approached and was attacked, ultimately requiring more than 50 stitches. A default judgment was entered against Lake after she failed to answer the complaint.
L.H.’s mother and legal guardian sued Sun under R.C. 955.28(B), Ohio’s dog-bite statute, which imposes strict liability on the “owner, keeper, or harborer” of a dog for injuries it causes. L.H. argued that Sun, by permitting residents to keep dogs and allowing leashed dogs in common areas such as the playground, qualified as a “harborer” of Lake’s dog and was therefore strictly liable for his injuries.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Sun, finding no basis for harborer liability. The Second District Court of Appeals reversed, holding there was no genuine issue of material fact that Sun was a harborer and ordering summary judgment entered in L.H.’s favor. Sun appealed, and the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case to define the statutory term “harborer.”
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Ohio, in a 5-2 decision authored by Chief Justice Kennedy, reversed the Second District and reinstated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Sun. The court held that to “harbor” a dog under R.C. 955.28(B) means to shelter, protect, or exercise control over the dog itself — not merely to permit the dog’s presence on one’s property. Because Sun did nothing more than allow residents to keep dogs in their dwellings and permit leashed dogs in common areas, while requiring owners to maintain control at all times, Sun was not a harborer of Lake’s dog as a matter of law.
The majority rejected the longstanding definition applied by Ohio’s intermediate appellate courts — that a harborer is anyone who has “possession and control of the premises where the dog lives and silently acquiesces to the dog’s presence.” The court found that definition conflates mere acquiescence with active harboring, and that the plain meaning of “harbor” requires some affirmative act of sheltering, protecting, or controlling the animal. There was no evidence that Sun provided shelter or food for the dog or exercised any control over it; the dog lived with and remained under the control of its owner, Lake.
Justices Fischer and Brunner dissented, arguing the majority overturned decades of consistent appellate precedent applied across eleven of Ohio’s twelve appellate districts, and contending that any change of such magnitude should come from the General Assembly rather than the court. The dissenters also noted the legislature’s 1987 decision to re-add “harborer” to the statute — shortly after a court held landlords could not be liable as mere “keepers” — suggested a legislative intent to encompass landlord liability in common areas.
Key Takeaways
- Under R.C. 955.28(B), “harboring” a dog requires actively sheltering, protecting, or exercising control over the animal — passive permission or acquiescence to a dog’s presence on one’s property is insufficient to establish harborer status.
- A manufactured-home community owner that allows residents to keep dogs and permits leashed dogs in common areas is not a harborer of a resident’s dog, absent evidence the owner controlled, sheltered, or provided for the dog.
- The decision abrogates the decades-old “possession and control of premises plus acquiescence” definition of “harborer” that had been consistently applied by eleven of Ohio’s twelve appellate districts and incorporated into the Ohio Jury Instructions.
- Landlords and property managers in Ohio now face a higher bar for harborer liability: proximity and permissive rules about pets are not enough — plaintiffs must show the property owner actually controlled or cared for the specific dog at issue.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly narrows the scope of strict liability under Ohio’s dog-bite statute for landlords, property managers, and community owners. For decades, Ohio courts had held that a landlord who controlled common areas and permitted a tenant’s dog to use those areas could be liable as a harborer when a bite occurred there. The Supreme Court’s reinterpretation eliminates that theory, insulating property owners from strict liability unless they personally shelter, protect, or control the dog — a standard that will be difficult to satisfy in the typical landlord-tenant context.
Practitioners should note that this ruling does not disturb potential negligence theories against property owners, but it forecloses the strict-liability pathway that made these cases relatively straightforward for plaintiffs. Injured parties whose claims relied on the harborer theory against landlords or community owners will now need to demonstrate actual custody or control over the offending dog, a materially higher burden. The dissent’s warning that this represents a dramatic policy shift better suited for legislative action may invite future statutory attention from the Ohio General Assembly.