There is a specific law, 510 ILCS 5/16, in the Illinois Code that covers dog bites and related injuries. The law explains how a victim can prove that a pet owner is legally responsible for damages caused by their dog. According to the law, an injured person must be able to prove the following: Trespassing occurs when someone is on private property without the consent of the owner. Illinois` Dog Bites Act requires the injured party to be legally on the property they occupied during the attack. If a person is illegally on private property and is attacked by a dog, the owner cannot be held responsible for the injuries. There are important developments in Illinois law that affect a person`s liability for damage caused by animals. This became clear when the Dog Bites Act removed the scientist as a defense of liability if the dog attacks another. The law was also amended to include “injuries” as well as “attacks.” Therefore, an owner can be held responsible for injuries caused by an animal even if the animal has not attacked or intends to injure a person. When the law was amended to include “other animals,” the courts also had to determine whether injuries caused by a farm animal resulted in the same liability as injuries sustained by a dog. Illinois courts have distinguished between dogs and farm animals by recognizing three defenses.
The first defense is found in the provision of the running at large law, which states that an owner is not liable for damage caused by an escaped animal, provided that reasonable means have been used to imprison it and that it does not know that it has escaped. The second defense is to take the risk. This defense is recognized by options under the Horses Liability Act, which assume that users of rented horses assume the risk of injury, provided the owner meets certain legal requirements. A third defence is found in the Animal Control Act, which denies reinstatement by a person who has custody or control of an animal by defining that person as the “owner” under the Control of Animals Act. The laws were also formulated to allow cattle ranchers who lost to dogs to recover from the Animal Control Fund, as well as legislation that strengthens the common law right to sue a dog owner for harm to their animals. Court rulings have also allowed for a full recovery from any dog owner if more than one dog attacks and injures an animal, if it can be determined that that owner`s dog was involved. It is also liable if animals escape through a separation fence and damage the crops or property of a neighbouring owner, unless it is determined that the animals escaped through the adjacent owner`s part of the fence and that part has fallen into disrepair. With the increase in dog bites, provisions have been included in the Animal Control Act that require an owner to safely lock up a dog that has been classified as malicious (by law) on its own premises. If a person is injured by an animal, intruders or non-paying recreational users are only responsible for intentional and gratuitous behavior or gross negligence. An amendment to Illinois law provides that guests and licensees have a duty of due diligence.
It would be more realistic and clarify the law if the Control of Animals Act were amended so that an animal that has been injured by an animal in its care or control, or that “harbours” animals, is excluded from recovery because of the injury caused by that animal because it assumes the risk of injury. To say, as one court of appeal did, that an employee caring for animals cannot recover from injuries under the Dog Bites Act because he or she is an “owner” is an anomaly when the same injured person could be covered by workers` compensation if the business owner so wishes. If such a person is covered by workers` compensation, it is likely that no recovery can be obtained in any civil matter, including one under the Dog Bites Act. One possible defense a dog owner could build against a dog bite injury claim is risk-taking. The idea here is that the victim has voluntarily and knowingly taken the risk of interacting with the dog and therefore the owner is not responsible for the end result of this interaction. A sign on a fence or door could certainly help support the hypothesis of risk prevention for bites caused by visitors to the property. However, the sign does not protect the owner if it is illegible or misplaced, or if a defect in the fence allows the dog to enter and bite someone who innocently passes on the sidewalk.
