Steinberg v. Petta
64 A.L.R. 4th 955, 114 Ill.2d 496, 501 N.E.2d 1263 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An absentee landlord who merely permits a tenant to keep a dog on the leased premises is not a 'harborer' of that animal under the Illinois Animal Control Act. Liability as a harborer requires that the person exercise some measure of care, custody, or control over the animal.
Facts:
- Lawrence Petta owned a two-story house and rented the ground floor to tenants Thomas Groskoph and Carol Welch.
- Petta's property manager, James Tagler, granted the tenants permission to erect a fence around the backyard to keep their 65-pound dog, a malamute or Alaskan husky.
- Tagler received complaints from neighbors about the dog being noisy and messy, and from the upstairs tenant who said the dog bothered him.
- Tagler relayed these complaints to the dog's owners, Groskoph and Welch.
- On August 13, 1981, James Steinberg, an 11-year-old boy, was playing near the property.
- While Steinberg was near the fence, the tenants' dog ran towards him, lunged over the four-foot-high fence without provocation, and bit Steinberg on the nose, causing injury.
Procedural Posture:
- James Steinberg sued Lawrence Petta in the circuit court of Cook County under the Animal Control Act and for common law negligence.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial judge directed a verdict in the defendant's favor on the negligence count.
- The jury returned a verdict for Steinberg on the Animal Control Act count, awarding $7,508.20.
- The trial court denied Petta's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- Petta, as appellant, appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Petta, as petitioner, was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
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 landlord 'harbor' a tenant's dog, and thus become liable as an 'owner' under the Illinois Animal Control Act, simply by permitting the tenant to keep the dog on the leased premises without exercising any care, custody, or control over the animal?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Miller
No. A landlord does not 'harbor' a tenant's dog under the Illinois Animal Control Act merely by permitting its presence on the premises. The court reasoned that liability under the statute for harboring or keeping an animal requires some measure of care, custody, or control. The evidence showed that the defendant, Petta, was an absentee landlord who simply allowed his tenants to have a pet. The actions of his property manager in relaying complaints did not rise to the level of control necessary to be deemed a harborer. Any benefit the landlord received from the dog's presence for security was merely incidental and insufficient to establish liability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of landlord liability under the Illinois Animal Control Act. It establishes that mere ownership of property and knowledge of a tenant's animal are insufficient to impose statutory strict liability. The ruling protects absentee landlords from being held responsible for their tenants' animals unless they take affirmative steps to exercise control over them. This precedent forces future plaintiffs to prove that a landlord actively participated in the care, custody, or control of an animal, rather than just passively permitting its presence.
Unlock the full brief for Steinberg v. Petta