## Facts

- A minor child, Bryan Villarreal, was bitten in the face by a Siberian husky, Samson, suffering serious facial injuries.
- Samson was owned by David Herborn, who temporarily left the dog chained in Donna Ring’s yard while he ran an errand.
- Ring permitted the dog to be chained on her premises and, according to the record, followed Herborn’s instructions not to approach or care for the dog while he was gone.
- Ring was supervising several children (including Bryan) at the time; the children were playing in the yard near the chained dog when the bite occurred.
- The plaintiff sued Ring under the Illinois Animal Control Act (ACA) and under common-law negligence; the trial court granted summary judgment for Ring on both theories and had earlier dismissed the plaintiff’s original general-negligence complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether Ring qualified as an “owner” under the Illinois Animal Control Act based on the dog’s temporary presence on her premises and alleged “control.”
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on the common-law negligence claim, given Ring’s supervision of children and the circumstances of allowing a chained dog near them.
3. Whether the plaintiff waived appellate review of the dismissal of the original negligence complaint by filing a second amended complaint that did not incorporate the earlier allegations.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for Ring on the ACA claim because Ring was not an “owner” under the statute on these facts.
- Reversed summary judgment for Ring on the common-law negligence claim because a genuine issue of material fact existed.
- Affirmed the dismissal of the original general-negligence complaint because the plaintiff waived objections by filing a second amended complaint that did not reallege or incorporate the earlier negligence allegations.
- Remanded for further proceedings on the surviving common-law negligence theory.

## Legal Principles

- A person is not an ACA “owner,” as a matter of law, merely by allowing another’s dog to be temporarily chained on the person’s premises when the person does not exercise care, custody, or control over the dog.
- Lack of ACA “owner” status does not bar common-law negligence liability where the defendant controls the premises and the surrounding circumstances (including supervision of children) and foreseeability and breach depend on disputed facts.
- Summary judgment is improper when reasonable factfinders could differ on whether the defendant owed and breached a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances.
- In Illinois pleading practice, filing an amended complaint that omits and does not incorporate allegations from an earlier dismissed complaint waives appellate review of the dismissal of the earlier pleading.

## Conclusion

The court held that Ring could not be treated as a statutory “owner” for strict liability under the Animal Control Act based solely on permitting a temporary, chained presence of the dog on her property, but it allowed the case to proceed on a fact-dependent common-law negligence theory tied to supervision and foreseeability, while enforcing waiver as to an earlier dismissed negligence pleading.


Severson v. Ring, 615 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)