Lexplug logoLexplug

GOENNENWEIN BY GOENNENWEIN v. Rasof

Appellate Court of Illinois
231 Ill. Dec. 24, 296 Ill. App. 3d 650, 695 N.E.2d 541 (1998)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A property owner does not become a statutory "owner" of a guest's dog under the Animal Control Act by merely permitting it temporarily on the premises, especially when the dog's actual owner is present and in control. For common-law negligence, liability requires that the property owner knew or had reason to know of the dog's specific dangerous propensities, which cannot be established by breed alone.


Facts:

  • Madelyn Rasof hosted a Passover dinner at her home.
  • Rasof's son, Jeffrey, arrived at the dinner with his Rottweiler, Buddy, without giving his mother prior notice.
  • Rasof permitted Jeffrey and Buddy to stay for the dinner; Jeffrey, the dog's owner, remained present and in control of the dog throughout the evening.
  • Another guest at the party was four-year-old Lauren Goennenwein.
  • For approximately two hours, Buddy wandered among the guests without showing any signs of aggression, such as growling or snarling.
  • At a prior dinner party at Rasof's house, Buddy had been present without any incident.
  • After dinner, as Goennenwein was walking past Buddy, the dog lunged at her and bit her in the face.
  • Rasof had no prior knowledge of Buddy ever biting or acting aggressively towards any person.

Procedural Posture:

  • Lauren Goennenwein sued Madelyn Rasof in the circuit court of Lake County (trial court) for personal injuries.
  • The complaint alleged liability under the Illinois Animal Control Act and common-law negligence.
  • Rasof filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing she was not the dog's owner and had no knowledge of its viciousness.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Rasof.
  • Goennenwein (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Illinois Appellate Court (intermediate appellate court), with Rasof as the appellee.

Locked

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 homeowner become an 'owner' under the Illinois Animal Control Act, or have a duty in negligence, by allowing her son's dog onto her property for a dinner party when the son remains present and in control of the dog, and the homeowner has no knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Doyle

No. A homeowner who merely permits a guest's dog to be temporarily on the premises is not an "owner" under the Animal Control Act, nor are they liable for negligence if they had no knowledge of the dog's dangerousness. To be a statutory 'owner,' one must harbor the animal, which requires exercising some measure of care, custody, or control. Here, the dog's actual owner, Jeffrey, was present and in control of Buddy, and defendant Rasof exercised no such control. Therefore, she was not an 'owner' under the Act. For the negligence claim, a duty arises only if the defendant knew or should have known the dog was dangerous. The court presumed dogs are harmless absent evidence of vicious propensities. Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that Rasof knew of such propensities in Buddy. The court explicitly rejected the argument that a dog's breed (Rottweiler) is sufficient to establish knowledge of dangerousness, stating that under Illinois law, each dog must be evaluated individually.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the limited liability of social hosts for injuries caused by guests' animals. It establishes that statutory "ownership" under the Animal Control Act is not created by mere passive acquiescence to an animal's temporary presence, requiring active "care, custody, or control" instead. The ruling reinforces the traditional common-law negligence standard that requires actual or constructive knowledge of a specific animal's dangerousness, significantly preventing breed-specific stereotypes from forming a basis for imposing a legal duty on property owners. This protects property owners from being held strictly liable for unforeseen acts of animals they do not control.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query GOENNENWEIN BY GOENNENWEIN v. Rasof (1998) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for GOENNENWEIN BY GOENNENWEIN v. Rasof