Hayes v. Adams
987 N.E.2d 402, 2013 IL App (2d) 120681 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Illinois Animal Control Act does not impose strict liability on a dog's legal owner for an injury caused by the animal when the owner has relinquished care, custody, and control to a third party. Liability under the Act requires a factual or reasonable basis, which is absent when the owner is not in a position to control the animal or prevent the injury.
Facts:
- Tina L. Adams owned a Lhasa Apso dog named Gucci for approximately 9 to 10 years.
- Gucci had no prior history of biting anyone or chasing other dogs and was described by Adams as a calm dog.
- On April 23, 1997, Adams brought Gucci to the Carriage House Animal Clinic for a surgical procedure.
- Adams left Gucci in the care of the clinic, removed the dog's collar and chain, and went to work.
- A veterinary assistant at the clinic walked Gucci, during which time the dog got loose and ran away.
- The assistant chased the dog and called for help.
- Kristen N. Hayes, then eight years old, attempted to help the assistant catch Gucci.
- Gucci bit Hayes on her right hand as she tried to pick the dog up.
Procedural Posture:
- Kristen N. Hayes sued Tina L. Adams and the Carriage House Animal Clinic in the Circuit Court of Du Page County.
- Adams filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing she was not liable.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Adams, ruling that she did not have care or dominion over the dog at the time of the injury.
- Hayes' motion to reconsider was denied by the trial court.
- Hayes, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, with Adams as appellee.
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 the Illinois Animal Control Act impose liability on a dog's legal owner for a bite that occurs after the owner has relinquished care, custody, and control of the dog to a veterinary clinic?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Schostok
No. The Illinois Animal Control Act does not impose liability on a dog's legal owner when the owner has relinquished care and control to a third party. While the Act's text seems to create absolute liability for an owner, Illinois courts have rejected a strict liability interpretation, requiring instead a 'factual or reasonable basis for liability.' The purpose of the Act is to place the burden on parties who are in the best position to prevent an animal from causing harm. Citing precedent like Papesh v. Matesevac, the court found that the Act contemplates some level of care, control, or custody. Because Adams had entrusted Gucci to the veterinary clinic, she was not in a position to control the dog or prevent the injury. Imposing liability on Adams would be a 'pure penalty for dog ownership,' which is contrary to judicial interpretation of the Act.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle in Illinois law that liability under the Animal Control Act is fundamentally linked to control, not mere legal ownership. It clarifies that the Act does not create absolute strict liability, thereby protecting owners who have reasonably entrusted their animals to competent third-party custodians like veterinarians, groomers, or kennel operators. The ruling prevents the statute from being used as a 'pure penalty' for ownership and ensures that liability falls on the party best positioned to prevent harm. This case provides a significant defense for pet owners against liability for incidents that occur when their animal is under the exclusive control of another party.
