New Ohio Court Decisions Offer Greater Protection for Landlords in Dog Bite Cases
By Matthew Pryor, Board Member
Ohio’s dog-bite statute, R.C. 955.28(B), imposes strict liability on the “owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog” for any injury to a person or property caused by the dog. This means that owners, keepers, and harborers can be held responsible for injuries caused by a dog, regardless of whether they intended or could have foreseen the injury.
A dog’s “owner” is simple to determine: the person to whom the dog belongs. Similarly, a dog’s “keeper” is someone who has physical charge or care of the dog. A keeper could simultaneously be the owner, or another person such as a dog-walker or sitter presently in control or custody of the dog.
A “harborer,” however, is more difficult to define. Historically, Ohio courts have held that a “harborer” is someone who possesses or controls the premises where the dog lives and permits the dog’s presence. Some Ohio courts have held that landlords and other property owners are “harborers” under this definition and, accordingly, can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog.
In June 2026, however, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified the definition of “harborer” in L.H. v. Sun Secured Fin., L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-2219. In that case, a dog bit a child in the common area of a manufactured-home community. The child and its mother sued the owner of the community, arguing that he was a “harborer” of the dog because he owned the premises and permitted residents to have dogs in the common area.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that one is not a “harborer” simply by owning the premises where the dog bite occurred. Rather, a “harborer” is one who actively shelters, protects, or exercises control over a dog. Accordingly, the Court held that the owner of the manufactured-home community was not a “harborer” and could not be held strictly liable simply because it allowed residents to keep dogs on the property.
Ohio’s Seventh District applied this new definition in Schultz v. Ciras, Inc., 2026-Ohio-2967 (7th Dist.). In that case, a woman was walking past a house when the resident’s dog got loose and attacked her. The dog’s owner lived there rent-free with the permission of his uncle, who owned the property. The woman sued the uncle, arguing that he was a “harborer” because he owned the property and allowed his nephew and the dog to live there.
Applying the Ohio Supreme Court’s definition of “harborer,” the Court found that the uncle could not be held strictly liable for the woman’s injuries based solely on his ownership of the property. Because there was no evidence that the uncle actively sheltered, cared for, or exercised control over the dog, the Court concluded that he was not a “harborer.”
These decisions provide greater protections for Ohio landlords. Going forward, property owners generally will not face automatic liability for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog unless they actively care for, shelter, or exercise control over the animal.
Learn More
1. Learn more about Breed Discrimination, which demonizes a breed of dog irrespective of individual behavior, raises constitutional issues, and fails to increase public safety, on our advocacy page.
2. Share this update and action alert with friends and family!
3. Subscribe to our e-newsletter to receive animal welfare related news and resources in Ohio straight to your inbox.
