Supreme Court of Ohio Rules that Sheriff’s Deputy Not Immune from Suit in Dog Bite Case
Friedman, Gilbert + Gerhardstein attorney Caroline Hyatt’s amicus brief results in the Supreme Court of Ohio reversing Seventh District ruling on dog bite case.
On August 30, 2023, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision in what should have been a traditional dog bite case, but for the fact that the defendant was an off-duty sheriff’s deputy. Allison Harris, the plaintiff, was bitten by a dog while attending a backyard barbeque hosted by the defendant, Dustin Hilderbrand. Hilderbrand, a K-9 deputy who works for the Belmont County Sheriff’s Office, argued that he should be entirely immune from suit because he was acting in the scope of his employment at the time, despite the fact that the attack occurred not at work, but while he hosted a private party in which he and his guests socialized, consumed beer, and played with his multiple dogs.
The trial court rejected this argument, but on appeal, the Seventh District reversed, falling in line with an increasing number of Ohio appeals courts in holding that Hilderbrand was entitled to immunity because he was required as a K-9 deputy to keep and care for the dog at his home, regardless of any other circumstances.
The Supreme Court of Ohio took up the case, and the Ohio Association for Justice filed an amicus brief, authored by Friedman, Gilbert + Gerhardstein attorney Caroline Hyatt, asking the Supreme Court to reverse. In its decision reversing the Seventh District, the Supreme Court applied a straightforward analysis of the law and found exactly what OAJ argued: that Hilderbrand was not entitled to immunity because there was a dispute of fact as to whether he was acting in the scope of his employment. In doing so, the Court rejected the analysis of the Seventh District, refused to expand the immunity statute beyond its terms, and preserved the role of the jury to resolve factual disputes.