## Facts

- Ramona Wilcoxen owned and operated a commercial dog boarding and grooming facility, “Mona’s Dog House and Doggie Motel.”
- Frederick D. Paige paid Wilcoxen to board his Golden Retriever.
- While the dog was in Wilcoxen’s custody, control, and care at the facility, it attacked and seriously injured her.
- Wilcoxen sued Paige under the Illinois Animal Control Act, alleging statutory liability for her injuries.
- Paige asserted that Wilcoxen was also an “owner” under the Act because she was a “keeper or harborer” of the dog, barring her statutory claim.

## Issues

1. Whether a paid boarding kennel operator who has custody and control of a dog is an “owner” under the Illinois Animal Control Act as a “keeper or harborer.”
2. If so, whether that status bars the kennel operator from suing the dog’s legal owner under the Act for injuries caused by the dog.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Paige.
- The court held there was no genuine issue of material fact: Wilcoxen boarded the dog for a fee and had control and care of it when the attack occurred.
- Under the Act’s broad definition, Wilcoxen was a “keeper or harborer” and therefore an “owner.”
- As an “owner,” Wilcoxen was outside the class the Act was intended to protect and could not recover from another “owner” under the Act for injuries inflicted by the dog.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the record is construed strictly against the movant and liberally for the nonmovant.
- 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.
- A person who accepts custody and exercises control and care over a dog in a paid boarding arrangement qualifies as a statutory “owner” (keeper/harborer).
- A statutory “owner” is not within the non-owner class the Act protects and therefore may not maintain an action under the Act against another statutory owner for injuries caused by the animal.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that a kennel operator boarding a dog for compensation is a statutory “owner” as a keeper or harborer; because the Act’s remedy is directed to non-owners, the operator could not sue the dog’s legal owner under the Illinois Animal Control Act for injuries caused by the dog while in the operator’s custody.


Wilcoxen v. Paige, 528 N.E.2d 1104 (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. 1988)