Motion-Secondary: 16 CV 007583

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Apr 24 11:22 AM-16CV007583
OD555 - E72

FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CIVIL DIVISION
VICTOR CARDWELL, ) CASE NO. 16CV007583
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE COLLEEN O'DONNELL
)
vs. )
) REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
JOSHUA GLOVER, ET AL., ) OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
Defendants. )

Defendant HYG Alum, LLC, by and through Counsel submits the following Reply
Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment.

As for the common law liability, Mr. Dillon’s Affidavit demonstrates that there was no
knowledge of the Dog’s presence on the leased property in the 51 days of ownership prior to the
June 5, 2015 Dog Bite. There are no facts before this Court contravening Mr. Dillon’s Affidavit.
It should be noted that regardless of Mr. Dillon’s ownership percentage, he was and remains
Defendant HYG Alum, LLC’s Property Manager and is therefore in a position to establish a lack
of knowledge.

As for the statutory liability arising from R.C. 955.28 it should be noted that there are no
material issues of fact before this Court. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment relies
entirely on Mr. Caldwell’s account of the Dog Bite. Immediately prior to the incident, the Dog
was leashed to a Tahoe SUV (Depo. at 25 & 26), the Dog “wiggled out of his collar” (id. at 64-
65) and attacked Mr. Cardwell (id. at 24 & 28). The incident occurred within the dotted area
depicted in Exhibit A to the Dillon Affidavit. Even if this Court were to construe the location of
the Dog Bite as a common area (which is not conceded by Defendant), this is precisely the fact

pattern presented by fowers v. Eastgate Village, LTD. (2 Dist.), 1999 WL 374131 and Thompson

v. Erwin (12° Dist.) 1997 WL 666079. }

ither Appeals Court held that the lease’s silence orFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Apr 24 11:22 AM-16CV007583
OD555 - E73

express language was determinative of its holding. Instead, both fact patterns illustrate that the
landlords. like Defendant HYG, did not “permit{] or acquiesce{] in the dog running loose.
“Acguiescence’ is essential to “harborship’ and requires some intent.” Thompson at *4,
WHEREFORE, based its Motion for Summary Judgment and the foregoing arguments of
law, Defendant HYG Alum, LLC respectfully submits that sammary jadgment in its favor is
appropriate and required as Plaintiffs April 13, 2017 Memorandum in Opposition does not create

a material issue of fact for resolution by a fact finder.

Respectfully submitted,

Christopher R. Carville (0068444)
Trial Attorney for Defendant

HYG Alum, LLC

Law Office of Christopher R. Carville
3960 Red Bank Road, Suite 120
Cincinnati, Ohio 45227

(513) 791-3111 (t)

(513) 791-4111 (f)

chris. carville@sa-trial. comFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Apr 24 11:22 AM-16CV007583

OD555 - E74

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 24th day of April, 2017, a true and accurate
copy of the foregoing was sent via electronic mail to:

Megan R. Hayden, Esq.

Terry V. Hummel, Esq.

Ryan H. Laurer, Esq.

Schiff & Associates, Co., L.P.A.
115 West Main Street, Suite 100
Columbus, Ohio 43215

Andrew N. Yosowitz, Esq.

Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, LLP
250 East Broad Street, Suite 900
Columbus, Ohio 43215

Christopher R. Carville (0068444)
Trial Attorney for Defendant
HYG Alum, LLC