Plaintiff sued for injuries she sustained. Defendants’ 105-pound dog bit her. She claimed negligence. The Trial Court granted summary judgment for Defendant on a common-law negligence claim. There was no evidence that Defendants knew or had reason to know that their dog was dangerous.

The dog was in the care and control of Defendant’s brother. He had been house-sitting and caring for the dog at the time of the incident.

Because Defendants lacked control over the dog during the relevant time frame, they were not subject to liability under the Animal Control Act.

The Plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision.

The Plaintiff’s injury occurred at the Defendant’s home. The Defendants were out of town. Defendant wife’s brother was house-sitting and taking care of the dog.
Plaintiff had pointed to testimony that the dog had gotten into a fight with another dog at a dog park. However, fights between dogs do not presage attacks on humans. See Keightlinger v. Egan, 65 Ill. 235, 237 (1872)
(“To charge the defendant, he must have had knowledge of the dog’s propensity to do similar mischief—that is, to bite mankind, and not animals only.”);

Dzierwa v. Ori, 2020 IL App (2d) 190722 (October 7, 2020)