## Facts

- Heidi Hassell worked in John Wenglinski’s home providing home health care to his mother.
- While at the home, Hassell agreed to walk Wenglinski’s two dogs as a favor.
- While holding the dogs’ leashes, the dogs suddenly pulled her forward, causing her to trip, fall, and suffer injuries.
- Hassell sued for damages and included a claim under § 16 of the Illinois Animal Control Act, which imposes liability when an animal, without provocation, attacks or injures a person who is peaceably and lawfully present.
- Wenglinski moved for judgment on the pleadings on the Animal Control Act count, arguing Hassell could not recover under the Act.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings on that count, and Hassell appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a person who has an animal in her care, custody, or control at the time of injury qualifies as an “owner” under the Illinois Animal Control Act.
2. Whether such a person may maintain an Animal Control Act claim against the animal’s legal owner for injuries caused while the person had control of the animal.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment on the pleadings for Wenglinski on the Animal Control Act count.
- Hassell had the dogs in her care and custody while walking them, placing her within the Act’s definition of “owner.”
- Under Illinois precedent construing the Act, an “owner” as defined by the Act cannot sue under the Act for injuries inflicted by the animal the plaintiff owns or controls.
- Because Hassell was an “owner” at the time of the incident, § 16 did not provide her a cause of action against Wenglinski.

## Legal Principles

- The Illinois Animal Control Act defines “owner” broadly to include not only the legal owner but also a person who keeps or harbors an animal, has it in her care, or acts as its custodian.
- A person who qualifies as an “owner” due to care, custody, or control of the animal at the time of injury is outside the class of plaintiffs protected by the Act’s strict-liability remedy for animal injuries.
- A temporary custodian cannot recover under the Act from another “owner” for injuries caused by the animal while the custodian is exercising control over it.

## Conclusion

The court held that because Hassell was walking the dogs and thus had them in her care and custody, she was an “owner” under the Illinois Animal Control Act and could not bring a statutory claim against the dogs’ legal owner for injuries occurring while she controlled the animals.


Hassell v. Wenglinski, 612 N.E.2d 64 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)