Our Lawyers
What Is Strict Liability in a Dog Bite Case?
Return to Dog Bite Center Main
When someone is bitten or attacked by a dog, one of the first questions is often: Is the owner automatically responsible for the injuries? Many people believe Illinois law makes dog owners strictly liable, meaning the owner must pay for injuries regardless of circumstances. But the reality is more nuanced.
Table of Contents
Illinois Animal Control Act and Dog Bite Cases
Illinois dog bite claims are generally brought under the Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5/16). The Act allows people injured by dogs (or other animals) to seek damages if:
- They were lawfully in the place where the attack occurred,
- They did not provoke the animal, and
- The animal, without provocation, attacked or attempted to attack them.
At first glance, this seems like strict liability, because the law does not require the victim to prove negligence (such as showing the dog owner failed to use reasonable care).
Is It Really Strict Liability? Courts Say No.
Although many people—including some lawyers—describe Illinois dog bite law as a “strict liability statute,” the courts have repeatedly clarified that the Animal Control Act is not true strict liability.
- In Harris v. Walker, 119 Ill.2d 542 (1988), the Illinois Supreme Court emphasized that the Act is “in derogation of the common law” and must be strictly construed.
- In Smith v. Lane, 358 Ill.App.3d 1126 (2005) and Meyer v. Naperville Manner, Inc., 262 Ill.App.3d 141 (1994), courts explicitly recognized that the Act does not impose strict liability.
- Earlier, in Vanderlei v. Heideman, 83 Ill.App.3d 158 (1980), the court explained that barring defenses like assumption of risk would, in effect, impose strict liability “without a factual and reasonable basis.”
These decisions make it clear: while the Act strongly favors victims, Illinois law does not treat dog bite cases as automatic strict liability.
What Defenses Can Dog Owners Raise?
Because the Act is not strict liability, courts have allowed common law defenses. For example:
- Assumption of Risk: If someone knowingly takes the risk of being around a dangerous animal (for example, a professional dog trainer handling an aggressive dog), a court may limit recovery.
- Provocation: If the victim teased, hit, or otherwise provoked the dog, the owner may not be liable.
- Trespassing: If the injured person was unlawfully on the property, the Act generally does not apply.
These defenses prevent the law from becoming a blanket penalty for dog ownership and ensure that liability is tied to reasonable circumstances.
What This Means for Dog Bite Victims
Although the Illinois Animal Control Act is not strict liability in the technical sense, it still provides strong protections for people who are attacked by dogs. Victims do not need to prove negligence or that the dog had a history of aggression—only that the conditions of the statute are met.
If you or a loved one has been bitten by a dog in Illinois, you may be entitled to compensation for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages. However, because owners may raise defenses, it is important to consult with an experienced attorney who understands how Illinois courts interpret the Act.
Additional Dog Bite Resources
- Basic Rules on How to Be Safe Around Dogs
- Can You Sue for a Dog Bite?
- Common Places Where Dog Bites Can Happen
- Dog Bite Lawsuit Process
- Home Insurance and Dog Bites
- Level I Trauma Centers that Treat Dog Bites in Chicago
- What Evidence Is Needed For A Dog Bite Lawsuit?
- What Is Strict Liability in a Dog Bite Case?
- Why Do Dogs Bite?
Dog Bite Lawyers Available Throughout Illinois
SEEN ON:
