Ohio Supreme Court Narrows “Harborer” Definition, Limiting Landowner Liability Under Dog Bite Statute

In a landmark change for landowners for injuries due to dog bites in Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court last week narrowed the parameters of who is legally responsible for behavior of a dog under Ohio Revised Code 955.28(B), the statute that establishes strict liability for injuries suffered from a dog bite.

Claims for damages sustained as a result of injuries caused by a dog can be pursued simultaneously under both common-law negligence and statutory causes of action.

Ohio Revised Code 955.28(B) imposes strict liability on the “owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog” for “any injury, death, or loss to person or property that is caused by the dog.” Likewise, In a common-law action for bodily injuries caused by a dog, a plaintiff must show, among other elements, that the defendant owned or harbored the dog in question.

Importantly, last week, in L.H., a Minor, v. Sun Secured Financing, LLC, et al., Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2219, the Ohio Supreme Court limited the meaning of harboring a dog to one who “shelters, protects, or exercises control over the dog.”

This is a significant change from previous cases, which broadly defined harboring a dog as “someone who has possession and control of the premises where the dog lives and silently acquiesces to the dog’s presence.” Ward v. Humble, 2022-Ohio-3258, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.), citing Vallejo v. Haynes, 2018-Ohio-4623, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.).  In L.H., the Ohio Supreme Court held that harboring shall now mean “actively sheltering, protecting, or exercising control over a dog; it is not enough that someone else’s dog is on a landowner’s property.”

What this means for landowners, including landlords out of possession, is that liability is now more narrowly tailored to exclude situations such as dogs being in common areas where they are to be under their owners’ control; walking on public trails; or in landlord-tenant scenarios where the tenant is the owner of the animal. Unless the landowner is both actively aware of the dog’s presence and exercising control over the dog themselves, the landowner will not be considered a harborer, subject to strict liability under R.C. 955.28(B).  While L.H. did not specifically address common-law causes of action, it stands to reason that this narrowed definition of who may be considered a harborer would extend to cases brought under a common-law negligence theory as well. 

In practical terms, landowners should be aware of this change going forward and take steps to ensure that they are not crossing into active engagement of sheltering, protecting, or exercising control over the dogs on their properties in order to minimize the liability risk under the new interpretation of Ohio Revised Code 955.28(B)’s definition of “harborer.”