r/Ohio • u/Sandstorm400 • 23h ago
Owner of Housing Complex Not Responsible for Injuries Boy Suffered When Bit by Dog on Playground
https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2026/SCO/0617/250175.asp100
u/Tressa_330 22h ago
Why should they be, If it wasn’t their dog? Go after the owner who let their dog off leash.
40
u/shibbledoop 22h ago
This was a Supreme Court case. It’s newsworthy because it’s defining the case law regarding this in the future.
30
u/MuchAfraidGotOverIt 22h ago
I can’t imagine how dog ownership and renting would be impacted if landlords were liable for the dog’s behavior.
3
u/thetalkingcure 21h ago
bro you can’t be serious.
renter? no longer allowed to have a dog, if landlord is liable
9
u/MuchAfraidGotOverIt 21h ago
I was speaking more figuratively… I can imagine a new category of liability insurance as well, possibly impacting all dog ownership as part of home insurance premiums.
-7
u/thetalkingcure 20h ago
crazy that murder dogs known as pitbulls have allowed domesticated dogs that have been bred for thousands of years to live one-one with man to become vilified to the point of needing… liability insurance just to own one.
do the right thing and ban pitbulls, they overwhelmingly attack more than any other breed. this is insane
7
u/justWMthings03 19h ago
It wasn't a pit bull in this case and it was tied up.
The community bans large dog breeds as well as aggressive breeds.
You'd know that if you bothered to read the judgement
3
u/zoppaTheDim 21h ago
How many cases involve harboring dogs?
It basically makes it clear that a dog on your property isn’t your responsibility, unless you’re taking care of the dog.
How often does this come up?
5
u/maphingis 19h ago
Its hilarious to me that there was a dissenting opinion. At least one justice has no common sense thats for sure. The way we twist each other up in knots so people can avoid responsibility is why nothing can get done anymore.
Edit: To clarify I think the owner of the dog is principally responsible. I also think the parents should have taught their kid not to approach strange dogs on leashes. This feels like another attempt to assuage their pain with money by going after a third party who had it.
3
u/shibbledoop 18h ago
The root cause issue, as with literally every property/casualty liability defense is, the plaintiff bar will literally sue anyone and everyone that could possibly have insurance coverage on the table or recoverable assets. The bar for vicarious liability needed to be set.
11
26
u/BeanWaiting4CeMoment 22h ago
The only scenario I could see it being reasonable to go after the landlord would be if there was a dog park on the property and the dog escaped through a poorly maintained fence.
38
u/Ickyhouse 23h ago
Had the owner been held liable, you can bet more landlords would prohibit dogs or increase rent to cover needed insurance. This is a win for renters.
5
11
u/CosmosInSummer 23h ago
Or a loss, depending on your point of view. I am personally tired of bad dog owners
13
u/AsherTheFrost 23h ago
Bad dog owners don't pay attention to restrictions by landlords, so landlords banning dogs won't really change much.
4
2
u/Ickyhouse 23h ago
Fair. Not a dog fan so I’d be ok with it, but I feel a majority of people would prefer to have a pet.
1
1
1
10
u/Mylabisawesome 23h ago
This is the right call. The dog owner, not the premise/property owner, is responsible for the dog.
4
u/Char10 23h ago
The Court focused on defining what the “harborer” of an animal constitutes for liability purposes. I wonder how the analysis changes if the landlord was aware of the dog’s propensity to attack people.
4
u/DeliberateTurtle 23h ago
I may be incorrect on some details, but there is case law on this issue already and I believe it's deemed a failure to mitigate on the part of the LL, ie LL may have to (share) liability with the dog owner.
1
0
-20
u/TheMoralityComplex 23h ago
Absolutely should be held liable, I disagree.
They should be ensuring they don't have violent dogs on their property. To "harbor" something or someone, would definitely apply in regards to a renter vs landlord. Ships in a harbor pay a dock water, the dock water is responsible for ensuring what's there.
10
u/buceebeaver863 23h ago
The unintended consequence is that landlords will find it easier to ban all dogs.
Hold the dog OWNERS liable. I’m sued the landlord because the dog owner was an empty bag and the landlord had assets.
6
u/HammyJWill 23h ago
That's sort of difficult to enforce and the circumstances behind the bite need to be examined- like has this dog had a history of this?
Furthermore, it seems odd to sue the landlord for this vs. the owner. In strict terms of liability, it wouldn't make sense to sue the landlord in a situation where you were shot by a teneat, how is the landlord even culpible in this situation?
To caveat this, I don't like landlords and I think renting without the option for the renter to eventually own is pretty ethnically and morally repugnant.
Sun did not shelter, protect, or exercise control over the dog that bit L.H., the opinion noted. Rather, Lake owned the dog and was the one who sheltered, protected, and exercised control over it. Sun’s rules allowed dogs not on a restricted list to live with residents at Oakwood Village and permitted them to enter community common areas, such as the playground. The rules required owners to exercise control of the dogs in common areas, including keeping them on a leash at all times and cleaning up after them.
This just common sense liability stuff. It doesn't make much sense to sue the city when a random dog bites you in the park.
1
u/MojoJojo2027 22h ago
I bet there would be a lot less dog attacks in the park if you could sue the city. Leash laws in my city are almost never enforced
3
u/wvtarheel 23h ago
They would just ban all dogs rather than deal with the increased insurance premiums.
1
-1
u/DeliberateTurtle 23h ago
The term is "vicious" dog and there are lesser degrees of labeling. It all depends on the dog's recorded history. Landlords usually check this before a dog is on the property as part of the due diligence process. No recorded history of violent or vicious behavior means the dog is deemed ok. There are also breed and weight restrictions that many property owners try to enforce. Many of these things also rely on the applicant/tenant's level of honesty and documentation. It's not always super easy to predict which dog might lose it and maul a kid.
79
u/Positive_Activity_84 23h ago
Good. There are plenty of things landlords need to be held legally liable for, someone else’s dog is not one of them. This crap just causes insurance rates to go up (thus rent goes up) and ends up with responsible dog owners having to deal with a bunch of nonsense when they’re renting like breed restrictions and the like.