Frost v. Robave, Inc.
694 N.E.2d 581, 296 Ill.App.3d 528, 230 Ill. Dec. 612 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business entity is not a 'keeper' or 'harborer' of an employee's dog under the Illinois Animal Control Act if the employee brings the dog to the premises for personal convenience, the business derives no benefit from the dog's presence, and the business does not have care, custody, or control of the dog at the time of an off-premises injury.
Facts:
- Jeffrey Roberts and Nicholas Cave co-owned and operated Robave, Inc., a clothing manufacturing business, located on the second floor of a mixed-use building.
- Roberts and Cave also resided in a third-floor apartment in the same building.
- Roberts was the legal owner of an Akita named Jake, which lived with him in his apartment. Roberts was solely responsible for all of Jake's expenses.
- Roberts occasionally brought Jake with him to the Robave business premises for his own personal convenience.
- Robave, Inc. did not benefit from Jake's presence; the dog was not used to guard the premises.
- On the evening of January 3, 1994, after Robave was closed, Roberts opened his apartment door to check the mail.
- Jake ran out of the apartment and down a common stairwell.
- On the second-floor landing, Jake attacked Kenneth Frost, another tenant, causing severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Frost sued Robave, Inc., Jeffrey Roberts, and others in the trial court, alleging negligence and a violation of the Illinois Animal Control Act.
- Robave, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was not an 'owner,' 'keeper,' or 'harborer' of the dog.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Robave, Inc.
- Plaintiff Kenneth Frost appealed the trial court's decision to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a business entity become a 'keeper' or 'harborer' of a dog, and thus liable under the Illinois Animal Control Act, when one of its owner-employees occasionally brings his dog to the business premises for personal convenience, and the dog subsequently attacks someone in a common area of the building after the business has closed for the day?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rakowski
No. A business entity is not a 'keeper' or 'harborer' under these circumstances. To qualify as a 'keeper,' a person or entity must exercise some measure of care, custody, or control over the animal at the time of the injury. Here, the attack occurred after business hours, when the dog had been in Roberts' personal apartment for hours and was not under Robave's control. To be a 'harborer,' one must provide food and shelter of a semi-permanent nature, typically for one's own benefit. Robave did not harbor Jake because the dog was on the premises only for Roberts' personal convenience, not for the benefit of the business, and any feeding or watering was incidental and did not constitute semi-permanent shelter.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of liability for business entities under the Illinois Animal Control Act, particularly concerning employees' pets on business premises. It establishes a crucial 'benefit versus convenience' distinction, shielding employers from liability where an animal's presence does not serve a business purpose. The ruling reinforces that the determination of 'keeper' status hinges on control at the precise time of the injury, preventing the extension of liability to a non-custodial party. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult to hold a business vicariously liable for an employee's animal if the business is passive and uninvolved in the animal's care and control.
Unlock the full brief for Frost v. Robave, Inc.