Articles Posted in Dog Bite

Under the Illinois Animal Control Act, a plaintiff seeking to recover injuries from the result of a dog bite must prove: “(1) an attack by defendant’s dog; (2) injury to plaintiff; (3) absence of provocation; and (4) that plaintiff was conducting himself peaceable in a place where he had a legal right to be.” Stehl v. Dose, 83 Ill.App.3d 440, 443 (3rd Dist. 1980). The third element of this burden, absence of provocation, can be a complex area of the law. In Nelson, provocation was initially defined as “an act or process of provoking, stimulation or incitement.” Nelson v. Lewis, 36 Ill.App.3d 130, 131 (5th Dist. 1976).

Since the Nelson decision, subsequent Illinois Appellate Court decisions have provided some as to what actions constitutes provocation. For example, the court in Stehl v. Dose also stated that a determination of provocation is “primarily a question of whether plaintiff’s actions would be provocative to the dog.” Stehl at 443. In addition, this standard takes into account both “what a person would reasonably expect, and how a normal dog would react in similar circumstances.” Kirkham v. Will, 311 Ill.App.3d 787, 794 (5th Dist. 2000). An unintentional or accidental act can sometimes create provocation, however “where the acts which stimulated or excited the dogs were unintentional … no provocation can be said to exist within the meaning of the statute if the acts cause the dog to attack the plaintiff viciously, and the vicious act is out of proportion to the unintentional acts involved.” Wade v. Rich, 249 Ill.App.3d 581, 589 (5th Dist. 1993).
Continue reading

Dog bites and animal attacks are more common than most people think. Often, the disfiguring injuries that result are never reported to animal control officials. Every year in the U.S., there are nearly 4.7 million dog bites, 800,000 of the attacks require medical attention. To compensate for the harm caused by dog bites, the insurance industry pays over $1 billion in claims each year.

Illinois has enacted laws designed to protect the rights of those who have suffered an injury due to an animal attack. Previously, under the common law, a person injured by a dog could recover only by proving that the dog had previously manifested a disposition to bite or cause harm, and that the owners of the dog were aware of the dog’s harmful disposition. This was known as the “one bite rule.” Although the rules set forth under the common law still exist, the Illinois Animal Control Act now provides an easier remedy for dog bite victims. Under the Animal Control Act, dog bite victims no longer need to prove that the dog owner had prior knowledge of the animal’s vicious nature. The Act makes it easier to plead and prove a dog bite injury case.
Continue reading