The Ohio Supreme Court is currently weighing a case, which may have significant implications for condominium and homeowner association (HOA) board members and managers: L.H. Hipshire v. Oakwood Village. At the heart of the case is the question of whether a landlord, who owns and controls common areas, can be held strictly liable under Ohio law as a “harborer” of a tenant’s dog that bites someone in a shared space.
Background of the Case
The incident in question took place on the grounds of Oakwood Village, a rental community in Ohio. A child was bitten by a dog in a playground area designated as a common space for residents. The landlord neither owned nor cared for the dog in question. Nonetheless, the plaintiff argued—and the appellate court agreed—that the landlord is strictly liable under Ohio’s dog bite statute. The reasoning: the landlord had possession and control over the common area, established and posted rules regarding dogs in those spaces, and actively promoted a dog-friendly environment for tenants.
The Legal Issue: Who Is a “Harborer”?
Ohio law imposes strict liability for dog bites on “owners, keepers, and harborers” of dogs. Traditionally, a “harborer” has been understood as someone who maintains control over the premises where the dog resides, even if that person does not own or directly care for the animal. In Hipshire, the appellate court extended this definition to include property owners who maintain common areas, draft and enforce rules about pets, and generally foster an environment that encourages dog ownership.
Why This Matters for Community Associations
This expanded interpretation of “harborer” liability is particularly concerning for condominium and HOA boards. Many associations maintain common property—playgrounds, parks, walking trails, and other shared or green spaces—but obviously do not own the dogs that residents bring onto those premises. If the Ohio Supreme Court upholds the appellate decision, associations could be exposed to strict liability for dog bites occurring in these areas, simply because they control and regulate the space and have adopted pet policies.
Even condominium associations that do not own the underlying land but maintain and manage the common property under their governing documents could find themselves at risk. Liability could arise not just for failing to enforce pet rules, but merely for the existence and management of common spaces where pets are permitted. This creates a new layer of risk for boards and managers, one that may not have been contemplated when adopting pet-friendly policies or maintaining dog-accessible amenities.
Practical Considerations for Boards and Managers
Until the Supreme Court issues its ruling, boards and managers should review their pet policies and insurance coverage. Consider revisiting the language of association rules, clarify enforcement procedures, and consult legal counsel about risk mitigation strategies. Proactively addressing these issues now can help prepare for any changes in liability standards that may result from the court’s decision.
Kaman & Cusimano is closely monitoring the outcome of L.H. Hipshire v. Oakwood Village. We will provide a detailed update with recommendations for our clients once the Supreme Court issues its ruling. Stay tuned for further developments on this important case.
