(A) As used in this section, "parent" means one of the following:
(1) Both parents unless division (A)(2) or (3) of this section applies;
(2) The parent designated the residential parent and legal custodian pursuant to an order issued under section 3109.04 of the Revised Code that is not a shared parenting order;
(3) The custodial parent of a child born out of wedlock with respect to whom no custody order has been issued.
(B) Any owner of property, including any board of education of a city, local, exempted village, or joint vocational school district, may maintain a civil action to recover compensatory damages not exceeding ten thousand dollars and court costs from the parent of a minor if the minor willfully damages property belonging to the owner or commits acts cognizable as a "theft offense," as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, involving the property of the owner. The action may be joined with an action under Chapter 2737. of the Revised Code against the minor, or the minor and the minor's parent, to recover the property regardless of value, but any additional damages recovered from the parent pursuant to this section shall be limited to compensatory damages not exceeding ten thousand dollars, as authorized by this section. A finding of willful destruction of property or of committing acts cognizable as a theft offense is not dependent upon a prior finding that the child is a delinquent child or upon the child's conviction of any criminal offense.
(C)(1) If a court renders a judgment in favor of a board of education of a city, local, exempted village, or joint vocational school district in an action brought pursuant to division (B) of this section, if the board of education agrees to the parent's performance of community service in lieu of full payment of the judgment, and if the parent who is responsible for the payment of the judgment agrees to voluntarily participate in the performance of community service in lieu of full payment of the judgment, the court may order the parent to perform community service in lieu of providing full payment of the judgment.
(2) If a court, pursuant to division (C)(1) of this section, orders a parent to perform community service in lieu of providing full payment of a judgment, the court shall specify in its order the amount of the judgment, if any, to be paid by the parent, the type and number of hours of community service to be performed by the parent, and any other conditions necessary to carry out the order.
(D) This section shall not apply to a parent of a minor if the minor was married at the time of the commission of the acts or violations that would otherwise give rise to a civil action commenced under this section.
(E) Any action brought pursuant to this section shall be commenced and heard as in other civil actions.
(F) The monetary limitation upon compensatory damages set forth in this section does not apply to a civil action brought pursuant to section 2307.70 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2022 · leading case: Byrd v. Brandeburg, 922 F. Supp. 60 (N.D. Ohio 1996).
Byrd v. Brandeburg, 922 F. Supp. 60 (N.D. Ohio 1996). · cites it 16דIn their motion for summary judgment, however, plaintiffs’ seek to establish parental liability under a different statute, O.R.C. § 3109.09, which imposes liability when a minor “willfully damages” property belonging to the plaintiff, a claim not explicitly pled in the complaint.”
Gurry v. C.P., 2012 Ohio 2640 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8ד” Count Two alleged that, under R.C. 3109.09, C.P.’s mother, Sheron, and T.”
White v. Westfall, 919 N.E.2d 227 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7דand State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) (collectively, “appellees”), on their claims against appellant pursuant to R.C. 3109.09 and 4507.07. For the following reasons, we affirm.”
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Borchers, 445 N.E.2d 1160 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 16דThis appeal by plaintiff, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, from a judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court raises the issue of whether a custodial parent is rendered liable by R.C. 3109.09 to an ex-spouse and noncustodial parent for theft of property of the latter…”
Motorists Mut. Ins. v. Bill, 383 N.E.2d 880 (Ohio 1978). · cites it 4ד09, some light may be shed upon its purposes by the following comments in Laven, Liability of Parents for the Willful Torts of Their Children Under Ohio Revised Code Section 3109.09, 24 Cleve. State L. Rev. 1, 2, at footnote 2: “Unfortunately, there is no legislative history…”
Evans v. Graham, 594 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 11דGraham (“the Grahams”) based upon R.C. 3109.09 (liability of parent for acts of minor), R.”
Rudnay v. Corbett, 374 N.E.2d 171 (Ohio Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3ד-11 applies to a cause of action filed under Ohio Eevised Code §3109.09, a statute creating . civil liability • against the parents of children who willfully damage the property of others.”
Byrd v. Brandeburg, 932 F. Supp. 198 (N.D. Ohio 1996). · cites it 14דIn addition, this Court also found that Brad Brandeburg’s parents, defendants Gerald and Cheryl Brandeburg, are hable to the plaintiffs under O.R.C. § 3109.09, one of Ohio’s parental liability statutes.”
D'Amico v. Burns, 469 N.E.2d 1016 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6דDixie Burns, as the parents of appellee Jason Burns, negligently supervised their child, thereby causing damage to appellant’s property, and that they are also liable for the acts of their son as per R.C. 3109.09. In his amended complaint, filed March 19, 1982, appellant alleges…”
Beaver v. Weaver, 757 N.E.2d 41 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “R.C. 3109.09(E)(1)(a). After our review of the record in the case sub judice, we believe that the trial court must conduct further proceedings and permit the parties to submit additional evidence for the court’s consideration.”
State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jiles, 2014 Ohio 2512 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 18דState Farm sought judgment against Donald pursuant to R.C. 3109.09, under the theory that Donald was liable for the intentional acts of his son Joshua.”
Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Love, 488 N.E.2d 226 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 15דAppellee sought to have the trial court impose liability on the father, Frank Love, for his daughter’s conduct, pursuant to R.C. 3109.09. The trial court, upon hearing the evidence and reviewing the record, determined that appellee was entitled to summary judgment against both…”
State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jiles, 2014 Ohio 2512 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “State Farm sought judgment against Donald pursuant to R.C. 3109.09, under the theory that Donald was liable for the intentional acts of his son Joshua.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.09(B) — 4 cases
Gurry v. C.P., 2012 Ohio 2640 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “” Count Two alleged that, under R.C. 3109.09, C.P.’s mother, Sheron, and T.”
White v. Westfall, 919 N.E.2d 227 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) (collectively, “appellees”), on their claims against appellant pursuant to R.C. 3109.09 and 4507.07. For the following reasons, we affirm.”
State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jiles, 2014 Ohio 2512 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “State Farm sought judgment against Donald pursuant to R.C. 3109.09, under the theory that Donald was liable for the intentional acts of his son Joshua.”
State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jiles, 2014 Ohio 2512 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “State Farm sought judgment against Donald pursuant to R.C. 3109.09, under the theory that Donald was liable for the intentional acts of his son Joshua.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.09(E)(1)(a) — 1 case
Beaver v. Weaver, 757 N.E.2d 41 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “R.C. 3109.09(E)(1)(a). After our review of the record in the case sub judice, we believe that the trial court must conduct further proceedings and permit the parties to submit additional evidence for the court’s consideration.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.