bail expressively and said some sort of overt act on the part of the dog is required and the court said we do not agree that any overt act is sufficient meaning in the context that not just any overt act one has to be court case said when the legislature put in zhorzh in tandem with the tax the legislature intended to cover a dog's affirmative but not attacking the hater would change but no issue has been raised here as to whether legal cause of branch of the illinois definition of proximate cause and there the dog was sleeping be on a chair of a woman who was a dinner guest and the woman didn't know she didn't see the boy she turned and felt and the court said defined him all the completely recently from the supreme court to include a public policy analysis inter city olson illinois supreme court twenty fifteen opinion the court said and looking at the definition of legal costs as a branch of true but neither core attached any significance to that whatsoever they did in saying they didn't discuss it in a legal context it just happened to be where the dogs were time rather those court focused on the  is trying to get at what happens when people own dogs and when with the dog not exhibiting any following of an animal it could be the dead look at a branch could've been anything it's one of the problems johnson is the defendant there i don't think fully engaged in that point because the the defendant there was trying to say that well the conduct involved in that case of this was that a young girl who walked behind a horse three year old child and the entire statement and becker is that her fault is not an issue because somebody under seven can fall and that was that was the entire issue there the only other case they  respect i would like to briefly address those as well the first one i would like to address is whether or not a person is in a place that he may lawfully be as long as he's not trespassing even if he is in fact moreover the court and garcia explained that this element of liability does not consider what an individual is doing on the land or how he or she arrived there or whether he or she is violating the law while she is in that over here she is in that location  and to quote the garcia court the basic purpose of the act does not support treating a point of who is in a public place less favorably merely because he is violating a law or whatever so therefore as to that certified question  it such that a person is in a place he is lawfully entitled to be under the act as long as he is not trespassing next i will address the question of whether a person is peaceably conducting himself if this conduct is not arouse the fighting instincts of the dog even if he isn't executing his feet the scoresheet again follow the garcia course and hope that a person is peaceably conducting himself if his actions were not to rouse the fighting instincts of the  peaceably conducting themselves at the time of the incident even though they were writing be a t v on the roadway illegally but the garcia court recognized that quote because not every one lawful act since to cause turbulence or public disorder one may violate the law while still acting peaceably in court the garcia court cited two in missouri case favorably which state be cooper and in that case the defendant had carried a the doctrine of comparative negligence is about affirmative defense under the animal control act this court should again follow another president hold that comparative negligence is not a valid affirmative defense under the animal control council mission johnson b johnson which is really the only illinois case to firmly address the issue and that i guess i would point out that the johnson court didn't give a two sentence holding and by the way there is no firm defense of comparative negligence the court went through an exhaustive analysis and the court specifically noted that the animal defense of assumption of risk despite the fact that that defense did not explicitly appear in the language of the animal control act more importantly though the johnson court noted that in contrast to the defense of assumption of risk the defense of comparative negligence is not a common law to the comparative negligence defense is codified and specifically states it applies to all actions based on negligence and street product liability that's where it stops the defense of comparative negligence by statute does not apply to actions brought under the animal control act therefore the johnson court rightly determined that the plain language of the animal control act in combination with the plain language of the comparative negligence statute supports a finding that comparatively negligence is not a valid from defense to the act it appears what defendants in this case are asking is simply for the court to ignore the language  the act and take it further and earlier the court noted that the idea of covert action was recognized by the court in the legislature has just let that continue on and so the point is in fact today recognizes that the courts have long established that and over act as if the courts have held is a requirement even though not within the statute the courts of all continued to hold that it is a requirement well in and the legislature letting that go should be given some credence in this case johnson was decided about ten years ago and the legislature hasn't corrected the comparative negligence act it hasn't said oh yeah johnson court said no no comparative negligence animal truck we think it should apply in the animal control act we better and then that statute that has this court should follow the plain language of the statute and hold that comparative negligence just like in johnson to hold that comparative negligence before moving on i would point out that the johnson court noted that its findings are consistent with holdings of other jurisdictions in terminal interpret and similar statutes that require the absence of provocation to recover for injury sustained by an animal the court in johnson noted that michigan arizona and minnesota have statutes nearly identical to the animal control act and comparative fault fall has been held not to  different result in your mind animal control ac talking about is basically a motionless animal basically of animal body and if position in the road having resulted in and i recognised the court saying that animals lying there alive animals lying there what's the difference and the difference with regard to the dead animal is it just doesn't fall under the statute because it's dead in this case the animal the overt act is animal going out into the road wind down there and that is where the defense tries to make a distinction  between or try to lump it all together well in any case the animals move from one place to another well in this case the animal has moved to a place that it shouldn't be in all of the other  reasonably be expected to have a motorist is not expecting a dog to be on the road to me in those other cases when the dog's at the resident is whining on the porch or walking in the the court noted that in the court of king what an animal is a passive causal force it cannot be a proximate cause of injuries if it stand still or move away from the point in a usual predictable manner known to the point in that case the dog was moving in a predictable manner known to the point that because it was in the defendant's residence there's a distinction between whether a dog should be on the road whether government should be in the kitchen in the residen of its owner and i think that's that's the biggest distinction that has to be made in this case and and with regard to the argument with regard to tailor the whole i think councils argument was well if the dog had been walking it would be a different result well in killing the dog was walking but the court said no still no over action it's not whether the dog is walking it's whether the dog king trotting it was sprinting i think the defendant would recognize if the dog darted out in front of the car ok that's an overt action well a dog is kind of jogger across the road is that an overt action the dog was walking is that an overt action that's misapplied the analysis the overt action is going to the place that it shouldn't be now there's another distinction that must be made here and actually and that's the distinction between overt action and approximate cost and i think the defense in this case try to type of two things together and while it may be true that if there is no overt action by the dog the courts have said well then there's no pro but there can be and over action by the dog but still no proximate cause for instance the dog that starts out in front of the road and motorist hits it that doesn't court is asked to answer the question not whether the dog was a proximate cause of the accident the court is that answer the question of whether the dog had made an overt action going out onto the road where it should not have this is the over  question i'd agree that it's not but it's not the owner owner's actions really have no bearing on the ultimate result under the animal control act the purpose of the animal control act is to say well you didn't do anything necessarily wrong it's not a negligence case but your dog did something that hurt somebody else and in this case the owner's dog did something that hurt somebody else and you're saying it was the act of traveling to  travel to a place somewhere else on the property it can be expected that you know the dog was on the course that the person's walking out with the suitcase says it moves so the dog moves the person  reasonably expect that the dog is going to move somewhere else on the property and so the same holds true in killing where the dog was walking it can reasonably be expected that the dog is moving from where it was alongside the person walking into it it's not reasonably expected that the dog is going to go to a place that it should not be which is in the middle of the road at two in the morning and council of council missing before it's not clear how the dog got to the road on one 's that simple no overt action well i think it again i think the overt action is going to a place that it shouldn't be if the dog ended up on the road it's in a place that it shouldn't period whether it had a coronary and that's why it laid down there or whether it laid down there to rest over act it's going to the place that it should not be and so again i guess that goes to whether  dog's dead or alive and i i i don't want to i don't want to confuse that because i don't know the answer to whether the animal control it specifically applies to a dead dog but the point remains that even if the dog dead it's in a place it should not have then because it shouldn't of a bird action really includes the proximate cause of course and this report in bailey bligh in writing about overt action which is what we're talking about here in the very paragraphs which action says that missing this case is behavior or activity on the part of the dog which cause the injury so overt action is two words which is really short in phrase for overt action which caution that's where is strict liability statutory liability in the first instance just as it is under the animal troll act it's just that in the animal running at large the legislature has said that did a defen