Summary
This appellate court opinion addresses whether a co-owner of a dog can be held liable under the Illinois Animal Control Act when the other co-owner was physically present and exercising control at the time the dog bit a child. The trial court dismissed the claim against the absent co-owner based on precedent requiring actual care, custody, and control. The appellate court reversed, holding that the plain language of the Act imposes liability on anyone with a property interest in the animal, and co-ownership does not constitute a relinquishment of control sufficient to defeat the claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Sandra Haeger is an “owner” of Walker within the meaning of 510 ILCS 5/16 and therefore liable under the Animal Control Act despite not having care, custody, and control at the time of the injury.
Holdings
- Sandra Haeger is an owner under the plain meaning of the statute and may be held liable; the trial court erred in dismissing the claim.
Key quotations
“Here, given that courts have routinely rejected a strict liability interpretation [of the Act], the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of [the dog owner]. Once strict liability was eliminated, there was no basis for [the dog owner] to be held liable, because she was not in a position to control the dog or prevent the injury. ... Thus, there is no factual or reasonable basis to impose liability, as doing so would do nothing more than impose liability as a pure penalty for dog ownership.” (¶9)
Factual background
Sandra and Gary Haeger co‑owned a German Shepherd named Walker. Gary took Walker to a public park where the two‑year‑old minor M.S. was bitten by the dog. Sandra was not present at the park at the time of the bite.
Procedural history
The circuit court granted Sandra Haeger’s motion to dismiss, relying on Hayes v. Adams and Dzierwa v. Ori. The appellant appealed the dismissal.
Remand instructions
For further proceedings in the circuit court.