## Facts

- Kenneth V. Frost lived in a mixed-use building in Chicago and owned a German shepherd.
- Robave, Inc., a clothing business, occupied space in the same building and was owned/operated by Jeffrey Roberts and Nicholas Cave, who lived in an apartment in the building.
- Roberts personally owned an Akita named Jake and paid for Jake’s licensing, food, and veterinary and grooming care.
- Roberts occasionally brought Jake to Robave’s business premises during the day, where the dog received food and water.
- Jake did not regularly stay at the business, did not spend nights there, and was brought to work for Roberts’s personal convenience; the business derived no benefit from the dog’s presence.
- After business hours, Roberts opened his apartment door to check mail; Jake ran into the common stairwell, attacked Frost’s dog on the second-floor landing, and bit Frost when Frost intervened.
- Frost sued under common-law negligence and the Illinois Animal Control Act (ACA), alleging Robave was an “owner” because it “kept” or “harbored” Jake.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Robave, finding it was not an ACA “owner” and had no liability; Frost appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Robave, Inc. was an “owner” under the Illinois Animal Control Act because it was a “keeper” or “harborer” of the dog.
2. Whether Robave, Inc. had sufficient care, custody, or control of the dog to support common-law liability for an attack occurring in a common area after business hours.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Robave, Inc.
- The court held Robave was neither a “keeper” nor a “harborer” and thus not an “owner” under the ACA.
- The court also held Robave lacked the care, custody, or control necessary for common-law liability.
- The court emphasized that the attack occurred after hours, off the business premises, after the dog escaped from Roberts’s apartment, and when the business did not control the dog.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Illinois Animal Control Act, “owner” includes persons or entities that “keep” or “harbor” a dog.
- A “keeper” or “harborer” requires some measure of care, custody, or control over the animal; mere permission, incidental accommodation, or occasional presence is insufficient.
- A business is not a keeper/harborer of an employee’s or officer’s personal dog merely because the dog is sometimes brought to work and provided food and water, absent evidence the dog regularly resides there or the business exercises meaningful control.
- The absence of corporate benefit from the dog’s presence supports the conclusion that the business is not keeping or harboring the animal.
- Common-law liability for animal attacks similarly turns on whether the defendant had care, custody, or control of the animal, including at the time of the incident.

## Conclusion

The court held that a corporation does not become an ACA “owner” or incur common-law liability for a personal pet occasionally brought to work when the dog does not reside at the business, the business receives no benefit from the dog’s presence, and the corporation lacked care, custody, or control at the time of the after-hours attack in a common area.


Frost v. Robave, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 581 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)