Thompson v. Dawson
91 Ill. Dec. 586, 136 Ill.App.3d 695, 483 N.E.2d 1072 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who provides temporary food and water to a stray animal out of kindness, without an intent to exercise control, manage, or care for it on a semi-permanent basis, is not considered an "owner," "keeper," or "harborer" under the Illinois Animal Control Act.
Facts:
- During the summer of 1982, a stray black Labrador dog was seen wandering in a rural area.
- On a Sunday in late July, James and Betty Stubblefield found the dog at their church and took it to their property to get it away from small children.
- The Stubblefields let the dog loose on their property, having no intention of keeping it, but Betty Stubblefield put out bowls of food and water for it.
- They planned to find the dog a home or take it to an animal shelter.
- A few days later, the Stubblefields left for a trip and asked a neighbor, Dave Dawson, to continue putting out food and water for the stray.
- Betty Stubblefield instructed Dawson not to look for the dog if it did not come around.
- Dawson put food out, which sometimes disappeared, but he only saw the dog on the Stubblefield property once and never interacted with it.
- On August 6, 1982, the dog ran into the road from Dawson's property, which was half a mile from the Stubblefields' home, and was struck by a motorcycle ridden by the plaintiffs, causing them injury.
Procedural Posture:
- The Canfields sued James Stubblefield and Dave Dawson in the circuit court (trial court) under the Illinois Animal Control Act.
- The case was tried in a bench trial, where a judge served as the trier of fact.
- The trial judge entered a judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding they did not meet the statutory definition of an 'owner'.
- The Canfields, as plaintiffs-appellants, appealed the trial court's decision to the 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 providing temporary food and water to a stray dog for less than a week, without intending to keep it, constitute 'keeping' or 'harboring' the animal so as to make one an 'owner' liable for damages under the Illinois Animal Control Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McCullough
No. The defendants' actions of providing temporary food and water to a stray dog do not make them an 'owner' under the Animal Control Act. The statute defines 'owner' broadly to include one who 'keeps or harbors' an animal, but these terms imply an intent to exercise control and provide care of a semi-permanent nature. Citing legal authorities, the court reasoned that becoming a 'keeper' requires undertaking to manage, control, or care for an animal as a typical owner would. The defendants' actions constituted an 'isolated act of feeding and watering a stray,' which is insufficient to establish the degree of custody and control necessary for ownership under the Act. The short duration of contact and the defendants' clear lack of intent to possess the animal support the trial court's finding that they were not owners.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold for liability under the Illinois Animal Control Act by distinguishing between temporary acts of kindness and the legal status of being an animal's 'keeper' or 'harborer'. It establishes that to be held strictly liable as an 'owner', a person must demonstrate a degree of dominion and control over the animal that goes beyond casual, temporary assistance. This precedent protects individuals who act as 'good Samaritans' to stray animals from being unintentionally saddled with the legal responsibilities of ownership, thereby preventing a chilling effect on such humane actions.
