Severson v. Ring
244 Ill.App.3d 453, 615 N.E.2d 1, 185 Ill. Dec. 706 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner who is not a statutory 'owner' of a dog may still be liable under common law for injuries caused by the dog if the landowner had prior knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities and allowed it to be on their property.
Facts:
- David Herborn owned a Siberian husky named Samson.
- On May 2, 1990, Samson bit a two-year-old child, an incident documented in animal control reports.
- Approximately one week before May 22, 1990, Herborn brought Samson to Donna Ring's property.
- During that visit, Herborn, in Ring's presence, told Zarita Severson that he "wouldn’t go near [Samson]..., not when he is chained up."
- On May 22, 1990, Herborn again brought Samson to Ring's property and chained him to a tree in her unfenced yard.
- Ring permitted Samson to remain on her property while Herborn left to mow a lawn; she did not provide the dog with care, food, or water.
- Ring knew that her neighbor, Severson, had young children who were not restricted from entering her yard.
- About 30 minutes after being left on the property, Samson bit Severson's 27-month-old son, Bryan Villarreal, causing severe injuries to his face.
Procedural Posture:
- Zarita Severson, on behalf of her son Bryan Villarreal, sued Donna Ring and David Herborn in the Circuit Court of Tazewell County, a trial court.
- The complaint was amended to allege liability against Ring under the Illinois Animal Control Act and common law.
- Ring filed a motion for summary judgment on both claims against her.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ring, dismissing the claims against her.
- Severson voluntarily dismissed her claims against the dog's owner, Herborn.
- Severson (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ring (appellee) to the Illinois Appellate Court, an 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 genuine issue of material fact exist regarding a landowner's common law liability for a dog bite when the dog's owner, in the landowner's presence, stated that he would not go near the dog while it was chained up?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice McCuskey
Yes, a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the landowner's liability under common law. While a landowner must exercise some measure of care, custody, or control over a dog to be considered a statutory 'owner' under the Animal Control Act, they can still be held liable under common law principles. Common law liability for a non-owner landowner arises if they had prior knowledge of the dog's viciousness. In this case, the dog owner's statement, made in the defendant's presence, that he 'wouldn’t go near [Samson]..., not when he is chained up,' is sufficient evidence to create a question of fact for a jury as to whether the defendant was on notice of the dog's dangerous propensities. Therefore, summary judgment on the common law claim was improper.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the important distinction between statutory liability under the Animal Control Act and premises liability under common law for animal attacks. It establishes that a property owner's duty is not limited to animals they 'own' in the statutory sense (i.e., care for or control). The ruling reinforces the principle that a landowner who knowingly allows a dangerous condition—in this case, a potentially vicious dog—to exist on their property can be held liable for resulting harm. This broadens the scope of potential liability for property owners, requiring them to be aware of the nature of animals they permit on their land, even temporarily.
