Harris v. Hildebrand, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3005
A K-9 handling officer is not entitled to immunity as a matter of law for dog bites that occur at the officer’s home while he is off-duty
Reasonable minds could differ as to whether the officer acted manifestly outside the scope of his employment where the K-9 bit a social guest of the officer at a cookout at the officer’s home where the officer is required to keep the K-9 at his home as part of his duties. Simply because the officer is required to keep the dog at his residence does not preclude a finding that the officer’s conduct was manifestly outside of the scope of employment.
Appellant-Plaintiff alleged that Officer Hildebrand introduced Xyrem, his K-9 officer, into a situation where he and his guests were enjoying adult beverages. Plaintiff further alleged that Hildebrand let Xyrem drink beer that had been poured on the sidewalk. At some point during the cookout, Hildebrand gave commands to Xyrem and used actual contraband to demonstrate Xyrem’s training. Later, Xyrem approached Harris who was in the yard setting up a game, and bit her chest. Harris’ injuries resulted in medical care and surgery. This was an appeal from the Seventh District Court of Appeals. The trial court was Jefferson County Common Pleas.
