Court Opinion

ID: 9859827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 22:46:07.387415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:23.225479
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE JIGANTI, dissenting: The only issue before the court is whether Lawrence Petta, the defendant, is responsible to James Steinberg under the provisions of the Animal Control Act (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 8, par. 351 et seq.). Section 16 of that Act provides: “If a dog or other animal, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself in any place where he may lawfully be, the owner of such dog or other animal is liable in damages to such person for the full amount of the injury sustained.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 8, par. 366.) The term “owner” is defined in section 2.16 of the Act which states: “ ‘Owner’ means any person having a right of property in a dog or other animal, or who keeps or harbors a dog or other animal, or who has it in his care, or acts as its custodian, or who knowingly permits a dog or other domestic animal to remain on or about any premise occupied by him.” The majority of this court supports the judgment against Petta on the basis that Petta “harbors” the dog. I respectfully dissent. Despite protestations of the majority to the contrary, a fair reading of the evidence proves that Petta, through his agent, merely acquiesced in permitting a tenant to have a dog on the premise. It appears patent from a reading of the Act that the intention of the legislature is to make a person strictly liable if he has control over an animal that injures a person. Petta knew through his agent, that there was a dog on his property, but there is no fair inference from this evidence to show that Petta in any way controlled the animal and is therefore responsible for the dog’s conduct. It is an unwarranted extension of the strict liability statute to hold a person responsible when the person had no control over the animal. The majority holding today says to landlords — beware of dog. This interpretation of the Act will have the effect of causing more landlords to forbid the keeping of pets. The owner of the dog was responsible for its conduct in the present case, not the landlord.