## Facts

- A four-year-old child, Lauren Goennenwein, was bitten in the face by “Buddy,” a Rottweiler, at a Passover dinner hosted at Madelyn Rasof’s home.
- Buddy was purchased and owned by Madelyn’s son, Jeffrey Rasof; Buddy lived with Jeffrey in Chicago, and Madelyn did not reside with Jeffrey.
- Madelyn invited her sons and guests to dinner; Lauren and her mother attended as guests of another son.
- About an hour before guests arrived, Jeffrey brought Buddy to Madelyn’s home; Madelyn had not expected Buddy but permitted the dog to remain.
- Buddy behaved calmly for roughly an hour before dinner and during/after dinner, without growling, snarling, or threatening anyone.
- Jeffrey fed and attended to Buddy at the gathering.
- After dinner, Buddy suddenly jumped up and bit Lauren.
- The record included evidence Buddy could be aggressive toward other dogs, but there was no evidence Buddy had harmed or threatened people before the incident.

## Issues

1. Whether Madelyn Rasof was an “owner” under the Illinois Animal Control Act because she allegedly “harbored” Buddy by allowing the dog to remain at her home during the dinner.
2. Whether a triable issue existed that Madelyn knew or should have known of Buddy’s dangerous propensities, supporting common-law negligence liability.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Madelyn Rasof on all counts.
- Madelyn was not an “owner” under the Animal Control Act as a matter of law because her conduct amounted to permitting a guest’s dog to be present, not keeping, harboring, or exercising care, custody, or control.
- The negligence claim failed because the record did not support a finding that Madelyn knew or should have known Buddy had dangerous propensities toward people.

## Legal Principles

- Animal Control Act “owner” status requires more than a social host’s acquiescence to a guest’s dog’s temporary presence; it depends on keeping, harboring, caring for, acting as custodian, or knowingly permitting a dog to remain in a manner reflecting responsibility or control.
- At common law, liability for injuries caused by a dog generally requires proof the dog had vicious propensities and the defendant knew or should have known of those propensities.
- Breed reputation, standing alone, does not establish that a particular dog had known vicious propensities; the inquiry focuses on the individual animal’s prior behavior and the defendant’s notice.
- Summary judgment is proper where undisputed facts show the defendant neither qualifies as a statutory “owner” nor had notice of a dog’s dangerous propensity toward humans.

## Conclusion

The court held that a homeowner who merely allows a guest to bring a dog into the home for a single social event, while the dog’s actual owner retains responsibility and control, is not an Animal Control Act “owner,” and absent evidence of prior human-directed aggression or notice, the homeowner is not liable in negligence for a sudden bite.


Goennenwein v. Rasof, 695 N.E.2d 541 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)