za IZ JUL2 3 PI

:

01

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY, OHIO DAVID DAVISON 7532 Chardon Road Kirtland, OH 44024 And NICHOLE DAVISON 7532 Chardon Road Kirtland, OH 44024 And ALLIE DAVISON A Minor, by and through her parents and Legal guardians, David and Nichole Davison 7532 Chardon Road Kirtland, OH 44024 Plaintiffs, Vs. BRENT PARKER c/o Lake County Jail 104 E. Erie St. Painesville, OH 44077 ALSO SERVEAT: P. O. Box 129 Willoughby, OH 44094 Defendant.

)
) ) ) ) )

12CV001995

EUGENE A. LUCCI
~

\~

-

--- ~--

~---

)
) )

)
) ) ) ) ) )

COMPLAINT

)
) ) ) ) ) ) )

Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon

) )
) )

)
)

)
)

Plaintiffs, David Davison, Nichole Davison and their minor daughter, Allie Davison, for their Complaint against Defendant, Brent Parker, state as follows:

PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs are natural persons residing at 7532 Chardon Road, in the City of

Kirtland, County of Lake, State of Ohio. 2. Defendant, Brent Parker, is a natural person, in custody in Lake County Jail at the

time of the filing of this Complaint, and at the time of the incidents complained of in the Complaint, was residing at 7532 Chardon Road, in the City of Kirtland, County of Lake, State of Ohio. 3. Cottage Hill Farm is a farm property located at 7532 Chardon Road, in the City of

Kirtland, County of Lake, State of Ohio, and is owned by Charles Green and Sarita Green, who at all times relevant hereto, leased residential leaseholds on that farm to David Davison and his family, as well as Brent Parker. 4. Thai was a female black Labrador retriever dog, a "companion fourteen animal" of the

Plaintiffs as defined by O.R.C. 959.131, who was approximately of the incidents set forth in the Complaint. VENUE 5.

years old at the time

Venue for this Complaint is proper with the Lake County Court of Common Pleas

pursuant to Civ. R. 3(B) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. BACKGROUND 6. Plaintiff, David Davison, raised Thai from when she was a puppy, and felt as if she

were a daughter to him. 7. Plaintiffs, David Davison, Nichole Davison, and Allie Davison considered her to be

a member of their family. 8. On or about the afternoon of November 21, 2011, Thai was walking in the

wooded ravine on Cottage Hill Farm, the ravine being situated between the homes of the respective parties. 9. permitted 10. Thai's presence on the property was consistent with the use of the property as by the landlord, Charles Green. At the same time and place referenced in the preceding paragraph, Defendant,

Brent Parker, shot Thai several times with a firearm, killing her.

2

11. 12. 13.

Brent Parker's shooting and killing of Thai was intentional. Brent Parker's shooting and killing of Thai was needless. At the time of the shooting, Brent Parker failed to report the incident to the or to anyone else.

Plaintiffs, to police authorities, 14.

On the evening of November 21, 2011, David Davison, his roommate Jim Gubics,

and his neighbor and landlord Charles Green, searched Cottage Hill Farm looking for Thai, but did not find her. Eventually, they gave up for the evening. 15. The next morning, David Davison resumed his search for Thai. Jim Gubics, on his

way off of the farm to go to work, stopped his car by the ravine, and found Thai dead in the woods. 16. Jim Gubics called David and Nichole Davison to let them know that he found

Thai. David Davison and Charles Green went to the ravine to meet Jim and see where he found Thai. They called the Kirtland police, who proceeded to investigate the incident. 17. Despite inquiries from Brent Parker's landlord Charles Green, the Plaintiff David

Davison, Kirtland police officer Charles Tercek, and Defendant's own wife Kera Parker, among others, Brent Parker denied for several days any knowledge or involvement 18. with the incident.

On or about November 26, 2011, Brent Parker finally confessed to the incident

to Kirtland police officer Michael Valenti. 19. On or about November 29,2011, a complaint and summons was filed with the

Willoughby Municipal Court, a probable cause hearing was held, and the court issued a warrant for Brent Parker's arrest. 20. Parker was arrested, and entered a plea of "not guilty" in Willoughby Municipal

Court Case No. l1CRB03696. 21. The city prosecutor moved to amend the complaint/citation, and after

amendment, Brent Parker was charged with a violation of O.R.C. 959.131(B), which states that "No person shall knowingly torture, torment, needlessly mutilate or maim, cruelly beat, poison, needlessly kill, or commit an act of cruelty against a companion animal," a misdemeanor of the first degree.

3

22.

Brent Parker was also charged with Kirtland Codified Ordinance 672.12(A), of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

pointing and discharging firearms in a municipality, 23. 24.

The case proceeded to jury trial on June 15, 2012. The prosecution and the Defendant stipulated at trial, among other things, "That

the Defendant did fire rounds at the deceased dog, which dog is identified as a domestic animal or companion 25. 26. sentenced anima" causing its death on the date contained in the Complaint." On June 18, 2012, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts. On June 18, 2012, as to the misdemeanor count of animal cruelty, the court Brent Parker to 180 days in jail with 150 days suspended, resulting in just 30 days in

jail, and probation of one year. 27. On June 18, 2012, as to the misdemeanor count of discharging a firearm in city

limits, the court sentenced Brent Parker to 30 days in jail with 15 days suspended, resulting in just 15 additional days in jail (as these would run consecutively), and probation of one year (to run concurrently). 28. In total, Brent Parker, is serving just 45 days in jail for shooting and killing Thai,

who had been David Davison's companion animal for fourteen years.
COUNT ONE CONVERSION

29.

On or about the afternoon of November 21, 2012, Defendant Brent Parker, acted

to exercise dominion and control over Plaintiffs' property; to wit: Plaintiffs' dog, Thai. 30. wooded At all times relevant hereto, Thai was on her home property and was in the

ravine with the permission of the land owner. 31. Based on information and belief, Brent Parker used a Ruger .22 rifle to fire at

least five rounds at Thai, a number of which struck her and killed her. 32. justification 33. provocation 34. Based on information or privilege. Based on information by Thai herself. Thai, having been shot at least three times, collapsed and died in the woods. and belief, Brent Parker's shooting of Thai was without and belief, Brent Parker's shooting of Thai was without

4

35.

Defendant's actions were the sole, proximate, and actual cause of all the harm

suffered by Thai and the Plaintiffs. 36. 37. Defendant acted in a manner inconsistent with the Plaintiffs' rights. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's conversion of Plaintiffs' dog,

Thai, Plaintiffs have suffered significant monetary loss and additional injury.
COUNT TWO INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

38.

Plaintiffs incorporate

by reference the allegations and averments contained in

the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 39. family. 40. Plaintiffs lived in fear, following the shooting, that Defendant would shoot his Defendant's actions inflicted severe emotional distress on Plaintiffs and their

firearms on their property again, or shoot at them or at the other animals on the property. 41. Plaintiffs have suffered greatly due to the significant amount of money they

spent in a difficult economic time following Thai's killing. 42. Defendant intended to cause emotional distress or knew or should have known

the actions taken would result in serious emotional distress to Plaintiffs. 43. Defendant's conduct of seeking out, pursuing, and shooting Thai was so extreme

and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and was such that it can be considered as utterly intolerable 44. in a civilized society.

Subsequent to Defendant's attack on Thai, Defendant has made threatening comments, and other threats which were especially daunting given that concealed weapons, causing Plaintiffs further

gestures, threatening

Defendant was known to Plaintiffs tocarry emotional distress. 45.

Defendant mocked and taunted the Plaintiffs by constructing

and displaying

publicly a gross and horrific effigy of Thai which Defendant maintained the way Thai looked just before he shot her. 46.

proudly was to depict

Defendant's actions were the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' psychic injuries.

5

47.

The mental anguish suffered by Plaintiffs is so serious and of a nature that no

reasonable person could be expected to endure it. 48. emotional As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's intentional infliction of

distress, Plaintiffs have suffered significant monetary loss and additional injury.
COUNT THREE

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 49. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations and averments contained in

the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 50. 51. emotional In the alternative to the previous count, Defendant's conduct was negligent. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant's negligent infliction of distress, Plaintiffs have suffered significant monetary loss and additional injury.
COUNT FOUR

NEGLIGENCE 52. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations and averments contained in

the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 53. On or about November 21,2011, Defendant breached a duty owed to the

Plaintiffs and that breach proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs and their dog, Thai. 54. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs have suffered significant monetary

loss and additional injury. COUNT FIVE lOSS OF COMPANIONSHIP 55. IN SOCIETY

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations and averments contained in

the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 56. Plaintiffs were entitled to the affection, comfort, society, services, and support

from their companion animal, Thai. 57. Plaintiffs have been deprived of such affection, comfort, society, services, and

support from their companion animal, Thai, and they have been damaged in other ways. 58. The foregoing was caused solely by and through the intentional and/or negligent

acts of the Defendant.

6

59. Plaintiffs.

The foregoing was not as a result of any act or omission on the part of any of the

60.
Defendant,

As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or negligent acts of the Plaintiffs have suffered significant monetary loss and additional injury. COUNT SIX

MONETARY DAMAGES
61. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations and averments contained in

the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 62. Defendant's deliberate, willful, wanton, and malicious interference with

Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of Plaintiffs' interests (to wit: in property, in Thai, and/or otherwise), as more fully set forth herein and above, had caused Plaintiffs to incur monetary

damages including, by way of illustration and not of limitation, veterinary bills and other expenses and losses. 63. Property with little or no market value can have significant actual value to its

owner, a unique value also recognized by society as intrinsic, or sentimental. 64. Furthermore, a companion animal, be that animal considered property or

something greater than ordinary property, is not an inanimate object like non-living property, such as a lawn mower. Victims of a theft or intentional destruction of a lawnmower, under

most circumstances, could be justly compensated by an award of monetary damages sufficient to purchase or otherwise replace the lost lawn mower with a same or similar item. Such a measure of damages for the loss of a companion animal is simply inadequate. 65. Unlike inanimate objects, humans develop relationships with the companion

animals in their care. Humans have affection and develop emotional bonds with their companion returned animals. These feelings and bonds are, or at least appear to be, mutual and humans feel a

by the companion animals cared for by such humans. Additionally,

sense of companionship, companion

comfort, consolation, security, and a sense of well-being from their

animals. Likewise, humans feel pain from the loss of a companion animal.

Companion animals themselves feel pain and suffering.

7

.17

66.

David Davison, Nichole Davison, and Allie Davison had such bonds with their dog,

Thai. Thai gave the Plaintiffs a sense of companionship, comfort, consolation, security, and a sense of well-being. The loss of Thai was a loss of those benefits and feelings, and is

compensable. They felt the pain of her loss, and that pain was real. David and Nichole's grief runs from anger to sadness. Allie still looks for Thai and asks where she is. 67. The actual, intrinsic and sentimental value of Thai to the Plaintiffs was far greater

than market value. In order to be made whole, Plaintiffs must be compensated for Thai's actual value to them. COUNT SEVEN PUNITIVE DAMAGES 68. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations and averments contained in

the previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 69. The criminal statutes presently enacted in the State of Ohio are woefully crime, which resulted

inadequate to address the serious and devastating nature of Defendant's

in the intentional and unnecessary death of a beloved member of the Davison family. 70. Even a maximum sentence, had it been imposed, would have been inadequate

to punish the Defendant and bring justice to the victims. 71. Furthermore, Defendant's conduct, as more fully stated above and which with the Plaintiffs' interests (in property, in Thai, an award of

included a knowing and intention

interference

and/or otherwise), was willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, warranting punitive damages in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant. the Defendant and others like him from engaging in such conduct.

This is necessary to deter

WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs, David Davison, Nichole Davison, and Allie Davison, pray for and demand damages from Brent Parker as follows: An award of compensatory damages for Plaintiffs' losses, including but not limited to

actual loss and Plaintiffs' actual value to them, in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

8

An award of punitive damages against Brent Parker in an amount in excess of TwentyFive Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), in such an amount sufficient to adequately punish Brent Parker for his conduct and to deter Brent Parker and others like him from engaging in such future conduct; An award of interest, costs, expenses, and attorney fees as allowed by law; and Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, proper, and/or equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Dylan rennan (0066682) The Law Office of Michael Dylan Brennan, LLC 5910 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 200 Mayfield Heights, OH 44124 V: 440.996.0066 F: 440.446.1240 mbrennan@ohiolegalcounsel.com Attorney for Plaintiffs, David Davison, Nichole Davison, and Allie Davison

JURY DEMAND
A jury of the maximum number allowed by law is hereby demanded at the trial of this matter.

Michael Dylan Brennan (0066682) Attorney for Plaintiffs

9

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful