Williams v. Buchner
2023 Ohio 1293 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-possession landlord is not a 'harborer' of a tenant's dog under Ohio's strict liability statute, R.C. 955.28(B), unless the landlord retains possession and control over the specific premises or common area where the dog lives and the incident occurred.
Facts:
- Michael Paul Seeley owned a duplex home and rented the downstairs unit to Darin Michael Buchner.
- Seeley permitted Buchner to keep a dog on the property, provided it was properly restrained.
- Seeley never resided at the property and had no responsibility for the care of the dog; the tenants shared possession and control of the front yard.
- On August 13, 2019, Clifford Williams was walking on the public sidewalk adjacent to the property.
- Buchner's dog, attached to a leash that prevented it from reaching the sidewalk, ran from the yard towards Williams.
- Startled by the approaching dog, Williams tripped on the curb between the street and the tree lawn and broke his ankle.
- The dog did not make any physical contact with Williams.
Procedural Posture:
- Clifford Williams filed a complaint against Darin Michael Buchner (dog owner) and Michael Paul Seeley (landlord) in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (a trial court).
- Seeley filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing he was not a 'harborer' of the dog under the relevant statute.
- The trial court granted Seeley's motion for summary judgment.
- Williams voluntarily dismissed his claims against Buchner without prejudice.
- Williams, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an out-of-possession landlord who permits a tenant to keep a dog on the property qualify as a 'harborer' under Ohio's strict liability dog statute, R.C. 955.28(B), when the landlord does not retain possession and control of the premises where the dog is kept?
Opinions:
Majority - Gallagher, J.
No. An out-of-possession landlord does not qualify as a 'harborer' under R.C. 955.28(B) unless the landlord retains possession and control over the area where the dog lives. A 'harborer' is defined as a person who has both possession and control of the premises where a dog lives. While a landlord may permit a dog's presence, a lease typically transfers possession and control to the tenant. Even in cases involving common areas like a shared yard, liability only attaches if the plaintiff can show the landlord retained possession and control over that specific area. In this case, the evidence showed the tenants shared control of the yard, and there was no evidence that Seeley, the landlord, retained any possession or control over it, making summary judgment appropriate.
Concurring - Kilbane, P.J.
No. The judgment should be affirmed, but on the grounds of proximate cause rather than harborship. The dog's actions did not proximately cause the injury as contemplated by R.C. 955.28. The dog was properly restrained by a leash and never left the property or made contact with Williams. Imposing strict liability merely because a properly restrained dog startles someone would denigrate the purpose of the statute, which is not intended to cover such incidents.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for holding out-of-possession landlords liable under Ohio's strict liability dog statute. It clarifies that merely giving permission for a tenant to have a dog is insufficient; the plaintiff must affirmatively prove the landlord maintained actual possession and control over the specific area where the dog was kept. The ruling provides a clear defense for landlords in multi-unit properties with shared spaces, shifting the legal focus from mere property ownership to the practical realities of day-to-day control over the premises.
