Case Law Alerts
Barking Up the Wrong Tree? How the Supreme Court of Ohio Shortened the Leash on Landlord Liability for Statutory Dog-Bite Claims
L.H. v. Sun Secured Financing, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2219.
July 20, 2026
In a recent 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed whether the owner of a manufactured-home community that permits leashed dogs in common areas is a “harborer” of a dog 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, subject to limited exceptions.
The case arose after a child was bitten in the face by a tenant’s dog while playing on a playground within the defendant’s community. The plaintiff alleged that the community owner was a “harborer” of the dog that bit him and, therefore, strictly liable for his injuries. Although the Second District Court of Appeals agreed, the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the case to determine the meaning of “harborer” under the statute.
Applying its plain and ordinary meaning, the Court held that to “harbor” a dog means to shelter, protect, or exercise control over it. While Ohio’s courts of appeals have long described a harborer as someone who has possession and control of the premises where the dog lives and silently acquiesces to its presence, the Court clarified that mere acquiescence is not enough; to harbor a dog requires one to actively shelter, protect, or exercise control over it. Because Sun did not shelter, protect, or exercise control over the tenant’s dog, the Court concluded it was not a harborer of it.
This decision significantly changes how statutory dog-bite claims against landlords and other property owners will be analyzed. Specifically, rather than focusing on who controls the premises where the dog is kept, courts must now focus on who controls the dog itself. As a result, it will be considerably more difficult to classify landlords as harborers under R.C. 955.28(B). Importantly, the decision does not eliminate a property owner’s liability for common-law negligence claims. Property owners may still face liability if, for example, they knew of a dog’s repeated aggressive behavior or ignored lease violations. The decision narrows only one avenue of recovery. Landlords should still enforce their pet policies, document complaints, and respond to reports of dangerous animals.
Nonetheless, for landlords and their insurers, this opinion provides a meaningful new defense against statutory dog-bite claims. Ownership or maintenance of common areas, standing alone, no longer automatically exposes a property owner to strict liability for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog. Plaintiffs will need stronger evidence that the defendant actively sheltered, protected, or exercised control over the dog that caused the injury.
