King v. Ohren
145 Ill. Dec. 138, 198 Ill.App.3d 1098, 556 N.E.2d 756 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Illinois Animal Control Act, a pet owner is not liable for injuries sustained by a person who reacts to an animal's predictable, non-aggressive movements, as such behavior constitutes a passive causal force rather than an overt act that proximately causes the injury.
Facts:
- Lisa King was employed by Mabel Ohren and was cooking in Ohren's kitchen.
- Ohren’s dog, April, was present in the kitchen.
- King was aware from prior experience that April would often move around underfoot in the kitchen at dinner time.
- King picked up a pot of boiling water from the stove to carry it to the sink.
- As King walked, April moved ahead of her on her right side, toward the sink.
- Upon reaching the sink, King saw the dog was in the path where she was about to step.
- To avoid stepping on the dog, King altered her step, which caused her to spill the boiling water and suffer scalds.
- During the incident, the dog did not touch, attack, startle, or move towards King.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Lisa King filed a two-count complaint against Defendant Mabel Ohren in the trial court.
- Count I was for negligence, and Count II was for liability under the Animal Control Act.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Ohren, on both counts.
- Plaintiff King appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on Count II (the Animal Control Act claim) to the Illinois 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:
Under the Illinois Animal Control Act, does a dog's predictable, non-aggressive movement in a kitchen, which causes a person carrying a pot of boiling water to alter their step and injure themselves, constitute an action that 'injures' the person, thereby making the owner liable?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rakowski
No. A dog's predictable movement that causes a person to alter their step and injure themselves does not render the owner liable under the Animal Control Act because the animal is a passive force, not the proximate cause of the injury. The court reasoned that while the Act's term 'injures' is separate from 'attacks,' liability requires an 'overt act' by the animal that is directed toward the plaintiff. The court distinguished prior cases where liability was found, such as a dog running between a person's legs or chasing a bicycle, from the current facts where the dog was merely a 'passive or inert force.' Citing Bailey v. Bly, the court held that imposing liability in this scenario would be a 'pure penalty for dog ownership,' which the legislature did not intend. Because King was familiar with the dog's predictable behavior and the dog did not touch or startle her, her own act of altering her step was the independent cause of her injury, not the dog's conduct.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the meaning of 'injures' under the Illinois Animal Control Act by establishing a distinction between an animal's active conduct and its passive presence. By requiring an 'overt act' by the animal toward the plaintiff, the court narrows the scope of owner liability, preventing the statute from being interpreted as a strict liability law. This precedent requires future courts to analyze whether the animal was an active agent in causing the injury or merely a passive condition that a plaintiff reacted to. The ruling protects animal owners from liability in situations where their animal's predictable, non-aggressive behavior is incidentally connected to an injury.
