Oberschlake v. Veterinary Associates Animal Hospital, 151 Ohio App. 3d 741, 2003-Ohio-917 - Damages Recoverable for Injured Dog

A veterinarian mistakenly began a spaying surgery upon plaintiff’s dog which was brought to defendant’s clinic simply for a teeth cleaning. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for emotional distress and loss of companionship finding that recovery of non-economic damages for such claims is not possible since dogs are regarded as personal property under Ohio law. Damages for loss to personal property are generally limited to the difference between the fair market value of the property before and after the loss.

Pacher v. Invisible Fence of Dayton, 2003-Ohio-5333 - Damages Recoverable for Injured Dog

Plaintiff’s pet dog was injured allegedly due to defendant’s defective electrical dog collar. The appeals court held, in light of its Oberschlake v. Veterinary Associates decision, that owners of animals, even companion/pet animals, cannot recover non-economic damages for themselves, or on behalf of the animals, for loss or injury to the animals.

Burrell v. Iwenofu, 2003-Ohio-1158 - Landlord Liability for Dog Bite on Premises

A pit bull bit plaintiff in the backyard of her apartment. Plaintiff filed suit against her landlord and co-tenant. It was established the landlord did not reside at the property and did not have possession or control over the backyard, which plaintiff tried to argue was a common area. The court held “[a] lease transfers both possession and control of the leased premises to the tenant and, thus, a landlord is liable only where the landlord permitted the dog in common areas of which he retained possession and control.” Accordingly, the landlord was not liable pursuant to R.C. § 955.28(B), the dog bite statute, because the landlord did not permit or acquiesce in the tenant’s dog being kept in common areas, as he had no control over those areas.

Samas v. Holliman, et al., 2003-Ohio-1647 - Landlord Liability for Injuries Caused by Dogs that Escape Premises

Plaintiff brought suit against Holliman and Charles and Doris Mitchell. Holliman was a tenant of the Mitchells and was caring for two pit bulls when the dogs escaped from the property. The pit bulls attacked a dog owned by plaintiff, who was injured while trying to separate the dogs. Holliman never answered the complaint and a default judgment was obtained against her. When the Mitchells rented the property to Holliman they included a provision in the lease which barred her from having pets on the premises. The Mitchells later became aware that Holliman was harboring two dogs. Holliman told the Mitchells that the dogs belonged to her son and would be on the premises temporarily. The Tenth District did not find the Mitchells liable because (1) the Mitchells were unaware of the breed of dog, (2) nothing indicated the dogs were vicious, (3) the dogs did not bite plaintiff, but only knocked her down, and (4) based on Holliman’s comment the dogs were there only temporarily, there was no liability based on a failure to immediately begin eviction proceedings against Holliman.

Rhodes v. Mason, 2003-Ohio-4698 - Punitive Damages for Dog Bite

Plaintiff was injured as a result of a dog bite to her face inflicted by her neighbor’s dog. There was evidence that the dog had bitten several other people prior to this incident. Plaintiff sued the dog’s owner for compensatory and punitive damages, alleging the defendant “consciously disregarded” the rights and safety of others by failing to take steps to control the dog’s vicious propensities. The defendant counter-argued that each prior incident involved strangers or stressful situations while this case involved a neighbor with whom the dog had interacted in a playful and friendly manner on all prior occasions. Therefore, defendant argued, he had no reason to know the dog would bite his neighbor.

This case went to trial and the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor, awarding $150,000 in compensatory and $100,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the court upheld the verdict. First, the court found defendant’s summary judgment and directed verdict motions were properly overruled despite his evidence suggesting he had no reason to know the dog would bite his neighbor. Next, the court determined evidence was properly admitted over defendant’s objection even though it related to communications and events that occurred after the date of plaintiff’s injury, because the evidence was relevant to impeach defendant’s claim the dog was put to sleep. Finally, the court upheld the jury instructions relative to punitive damages because they were taken verbatim from a prior case and fairly and correctly stated the law applicable to the evidence.

Hilty v. Topaz, 2004-Ohio-4589 - Dog Bite

Plaintiff was injured while trying to avoid dogs on rental property owned by the defendant. The defendant was the landlord and did not live on the premises, nor did he own the dogs. Plaintiff contended he nevertheless was a harborer of the dogs since he owned the premises. The evidence that indicated the tenant’s lease specifically prohibited pets and the landlord had made repeated efforts to have the tenant remove the dogs from the premises. The court of appeals determined that these were sufficient facts to establish the landlord was not a harborer of the dogs, and therefore was not subject to statutory or common law liability.

Buettner v. Beasley, 2004-Ohio-1909 - Dog Bite

Plaintiff sued her boyfriend after she was bitten by one of his dogs at his home. The premises were owned by the boyfriend and he paid the mortgage and all expenses for the home. Plaintiff had a key to the residence, received mail there, and during the time period in question, considered it to be her personal residence. The boyfriend admitted he was the owner of a dog, but contended that since plaintiff also resided on the premises, she too was a keeper or harborer of the dog and therefore was not allowed to make a claim against the boyfriend. Since she was found to be a resident, the dismissal of her claim was upheld.

Marin v. Frick, 2004-Ohio-5642 - Dog Bite

While plaintiff was visiting the defendant, he went out with the defendant while she walked her dog. The defendant wanted to go back inside the home and plaintiff took the leash and continued to walk the dog. In the course of doing so, the dog bit him on the leg. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant on the basis that the plaintiff, was a “keeper” of the dog at the time of the incident, and therefore was not allowed to make a claim against the owner. This ruling was affirmed on appeal.