## Facts

- Doris Thompson was injured on August 6, 1982, when a large black Labrador ran into the roadway and collided with the motorcycle she and her husband were riding.
- The dog was a stray that had been appearing around James Stubblefield’s farm and wandering among nearby properties.
- For three or four days before leaving on a short trip, Stubblefield placed bowls of food and water near his barn for the dog.
- While away, Stubblefield asked Dave Dawson, who lived about a half-mile away, to keep the bowls filled; Stubblefield planned to take the dog to an animal shelter after returning.
- Less than a week after Stubblefield began feeding the dog, the dog appeared at Dawson’s home, ran into the road, and caused the collision.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Illinois Animal Control Act, alleging Stubblefield was the dog’s “owner” and Dawson was a “keeper or harborer.”
- After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for both defendants, finding insufficient proof that either was an “owner” under the Act.

## Issues

1. Whether Stubblefield became an “owner” under the Illinois Animal Control Act by feeding and watering a stray dog for several days, arranging continued feeding during his absence, and intending to take the dog to a shelter.
2. Whether Dawson became an “owner,” “keeper,” or “harborer” under the Act by agreeing to replenish food and water and by the dog’s presence near Dawson’s home shortly before the accident.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for both defendants.
- The evidence did not establish that either defendant “kept,” “harbored,” or exercised sufficient care, custody, or control over the stray dog to qualify as an “owner” under the Act.
- Isolated, short-term feeding and watering of a wandering stray did not, without more, impose strict liability under the Act.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Illinois Animal Control Act, “owner” includes persons who keep or harbor an animal or have it in their care, custody, or control.
- “Keeping” or “harboring” requires more than transitory or casual contact; it requires a meaningful assumption of responsibility marked by dominion or control.
- Isolated acts of providing food and water to a stray animal, without evidence of ongoing custody or control, are insufficient to establish statutory “owner” status.

## Conclusion

The court held that brief, limited assistance to a wandering stray—consisting mainly of feeding and watering—does not make a person an “owner,” keeper, or harborer under the Illinois Animal Control Act absent proof of dominion or control, and therefore does not trigger the Act’s strict-liability regime.


Thompson v. Dawson, 483 N.E.2d 1072 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)