If your dog has an angry disposition, watch out, because there are legal remedies available to people bitten by an angry dog. BUT: just because a dog bites you does not mean that the dog is the one who broke the law!

In the State of Illinois, there exists a law called the Animal Control Act, which is at Chapter 510 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, Act 5, Section 16 (510 ILCS 5/16). This law reads as follows: “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.”

If you haven’t yet noticed, the key phrases in this law are “without provocation” and “where he may lawfully be.” As with most things in the law, the nuances, or grey spaces are where the law is at! What does “without provocation” mean? When are you “lawfully” present and when not?

“Without provocation” means, basically, that you (the bitten person) intentionally do something to anger the canine, like yell at it, throw something at it, or hit it. Acting in this way toward an otherwise friendly animal makes you the perpetrator and the biting dog the victim! If this was the case then you should lose any lawsuit you file against a dog-owner whose pet harmed you.

“Lawfully present” means that you were in a place you had a legal right to be, like a friend’s home, place you were invited to, or otherwise somewhere you reasonably believed you had the right to be. If you were engaged in criminal behavior or were somewhere where “BEWARE OF DOG” signs or “NO TRESPASSING” signs dotted the landscape, you should have known you were not legally present on the property, and any suit you file against the dog-owner should fail in Illinois courts.

In Chicago, the Animal Care and Control ordinance is in effect to patrol the behavior of Chicago residing dogs. This ordinance (Chapter 7-12 of the Chicago Municipal Code, online at www.chicityclerk.com/legislation/codes/ ) allows city officials to impound and even euthanize dogs or other pets that have been determined to be a “dangerous animal”. The ordinance which sets the standard for what is a dangerous animal follows basically the same logic as the state Animal Control Act.

The Animal Care and Control ordinance governs city officials’ determinations regarding animals who are referred to them from complaints of bitten persons. Again, these officials must determine whether an animal attacked without provocation on public property or outside the bounds of its owner’s property. If this finding is made, the Chicago Commission on Animal Care and Control (www.cityofchicago.org/AnimalCareControl/ ) can fine the dog owner and restrict its control of its pet and even put your pet to sleep!

In a nutshell, make sure you have signs up if you have guard dogs around, and make sure you train your dog to be loving and caring to everyone, unless PROVOKED!

I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO KNOW IF THESE PEOPLE WHO WERE SO "VICTIMIZED" WERE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO BE ON THE PROPERTY. IF NOT, GUESS WHAT, WE WILL BE LOSING MORE TAX DOLLARS PAYING CHECKS (JUST CHECK THE LINK TO HAWTHORN WOODS) MORE AND MORE AND MORE. JUST GIVE THE DOG ANOTHER HOME AND DROP THIS ISSUE. THERE ARE A LOT OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS UPSET AND PERHAPS A COMPROMISE IS NECESSARY.  WHILE WE PAY THIS RETAINER EACH MONTH, WE THOUGHT THIS WAS A CRIMELESS TOWN. THIS IS A JOKE. SORRY THAT PEOPLE WERE NIPPED BUT DOGS ARE TO PROTECT OWNERS AND THEIR CHILDREN. IF YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO BE ON THE PROPERTY THEN YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE!

#84: Guest - Dog's have rights too! 

Thank you for taking the time to write this very informative comment and making readers aware of the Illinois Animal Control Act. The Act is a comprehensive, statutory, and specific structure of defining and determining dangerous dogs. Hawthorn Woods claims they do not have to follow the State Laws, and claims it can even make its own laws which directly conflict with the state laws.  This is patently false, and the reason we filed a complaint in district court in the first place.  Unlike Chicago, which is a home-ruled municipality, HW is non-home ruled, which means state laws preempt village ordinances, especially when they conflict. Contrary to your comments above, The State Animal Control Act goes to great lengths to protect owner's rights and prevent the euthanization of any dog by establishing specific procedures required to find a dog dangerous or viscious, and specific requirements for owners whose dogs are found viscious.  In fact, if you read the Law carefully, you will see that the only circumstances the government can order the kiling of a dog is if owners do not comply with viscious dog confinement requirements, and only then, if the dog cannot be adopted away from the irresponsible owner within a reasonable period.  

And to clarify: The individuals that were bit were on our property but were not there illegally or improperly.  Provocation is a sticky issue, because provocation should be from the dog's point of view (legal precedent exists). Since Heidi cannot talk, we can only surmise her motivations. Dogs protect their family and their property. Heidi was sometimes timid and afraid of sudden strangers, until she sniffed them and realized she and her home were not threatened (then her affection and copius licking were pretty relentless). We know this: Heidi never bit anyone and continued to pursue the person. She nipped, then retreated with her tail between her legs. 

Heidi is a 28 pound beagle-mix who has been living in a 4x10 cage for a year and 5 months  She is doing remarkably well-- full of energy and affection when we visit her.  But Heidi is on Death Row and doesn't deserve this inhumane treatment, nor the ultimate act of inhumanity-- death at the hands of a enigmatic village Board and a high-priced, hostile Chicago lawyer.