Difference Between the Illinois Animal Control Act and Negligence in Dog Bite Cases

Experienced Attorneys for Victims of Dog Attacks Maximizing Compensation Under the Animal Control Act and Negligence

Dog bite injuries can be both traumatic and legally complex. In Illinois, victims of dog attacks may pursue legal action under two primary legal theories: strict liability under the Illinois Animal Control Act and common law negligence. Understanding the differences between these two causes of action is crucial for determining the most appropriate legal strategy. At John J. Malm & Associates, our top-rated Illinois dog bite attorneys regularly evaluate these distinctions to build the strongest possible case for our clients.

Strict Liability Under the Illinois Animal Control Act

The Illinois Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5/) provides a cause of action that does not require proof of negligence. Instead, a plaintiff must establish five essential elements:

1. The defendant is the owner (or harborer/keeper) of the dog;
2. The plaintiff was peaceably conducting themselves;
3. The plaintiff was lawfully present on the property;
4. The dog attacked or injured the plaintiff;
5. The plaintiff did not provoke the dog.

If these elements are met, the defendant is strictly liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. No showing of fault or prior knowledge of the dog’s aggressive nature is required.

Jury Instructions for the Animal Control Act

Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (IPI) 110.01 sets forth the model instruction for strict liability under the Act. It reads, in part:

“If you find that the defendant owned or harbored the dog, that the plaintiff was conducting himself peaceably and was lawfully present at the time of the occurrence, that the dog attacked or injured the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff did not provoke the dog, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff.”

This instruction helps jurors understand that liability attaches automatically when these elements are proven.

Negligence in Dog Bite Cases

In contrast, a claim based on negligence requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant breached a duty of care and that this breach caused the injury. This is a fact-intensive inquiry and typically involves showing:

1. The defendant owed a duty of care (e.g., to keep the dog restrained or warn others);
2. The defendant breached that duty;
3. The breach was the proximate cause of the injury;
4. The plaintiff suffered damages.

Negligence claims are especially useful in situations where the Animal Control Act may not apply. For example, when the injured person was arguably not lawfully on the premises or when provocation is disputed.

Jury Instructions for Negligence

IPI 10.02 defines negligence generally as the failure to do something a reasonably careful person would do under similar circumstances. IPI 15.01 instructs juries on proximate cause. In dog bite cases, these instructions are used to argue that the defendant’s unreasonable conduct, such as failing to leash a known aggressive dog or allowing an animal into a crowded space, was the cause of the injury.

Choosing Between the Two Legal Theories

A plaintiff may choose to plead both strict liability and negligence in a dog bite case. This is often advisable to preserve all potential avenues of recovery.

There are times, however, when only one theory may be viable. For instance:

• A case where the injured party cannot prove lawful presence might weaken an Animal Control Act claim but still support a negligence theory if the defendant acted unreasonably.
• Conversely, if provocation is hotly contested but not clearly proven, a strict liability claim may still succeed where a negligence claim might falter.

“There are cases where we are able to successfully pursue a negligence theory, even when the strict liability claim under the Animal Control Act isn’t available,” says Naperville dog bite attorney John J. Malm. “And in other cases, the Act provides a more straightforward route to justice. Knowing when and how to plead each cause of action is key to success.”

Defenses to Dog Bite Claims in Illinois

Dog owners and defendants in dog attack cases often raise several common defenses:

1. Provocation: Defendants frequently argue that the plaintiff provoked the animal, which is a complete defense to strict liability under the Animal Control Act.

2. Trespassing: The Animal Control Act applies only when the plaintiff was lawfully present. Trespassing may negate this requirement.

3. Comparative Fault: Under negligence theories, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff was partially at fault, potentially reducing the amount of recovery.

4. Assumption of Risk: This defense may apply if the plaintiff knowingly accepted the risk of being near a dangerous animal.

5. Lack of Knowledge in Negligence Claims: In negligence cases, a defendant may argue that they had no reason to believe the dog was dangerous or that no duty existed.

Frequently Asked Questions About Dog Bite Claims in Illinois

Q: Can I still recover if I was bitten by a friend’s dog at their home?
A: Yes, as long as you were lawfully on the property and did not provoke the animal. The Animal Control Act or negligence may apply.

Q: What if I was bitten while working, like delivering packages?
A: You may have a valid claim. Delivery drivers are typically considered lawfully present, and both strict liability and negligence may be pursued.

Q: Do I need to prove the dog had bitten someone before?
A: No. Prior knowledge of aggression is not required under the Animal Control Act. It may, however, be relevant in a negligence claim.

Q: What if there were no witnesses to the attack?
A: You can still file a claim. Medical records, photos, police reports, and testimony are often sufficient to prove your case.

Q: Can I sue a landlord or property owner for a dog bite?
A: Possibly. If the landlord knew about the dog’s aggression and failed to act, they may be liable under negligence principles.

Contact the Award-Winning Illinois Dog Bite Lawyers at John J. Malm & Associates to Navigate Your Dog Bite Case

At John J. Malm & Associates, our award-winning team of Illinois dog attack attorneys has extensive experience representing dog bite victims throughout Illinois. With offices in Naperville and St. Charles, we bring over 90 years of combined legal experience to each case we handle. We’ve recovered over 100 million dollars for clients through strategic use of both negligence and strict liability claims.

Whether you’re unsure which legal theory applies or want to explore all your options, we can guide you through the process. Contact us today for a free consultation.