one-bite rule

Show on page(s): 

“Accordingly, when the Act was initially passed in 1949 its purpose ‘was modest: to reduce the burden on dog-bite plaintiffs by eliminating the ‘one-bite rule’—the common law requirement that a plaintiff must plead and prove that a dog owner either knew or was negligent not to know that his dog had a propensity to injure people.’ Harris, 119 Ill.2d at 547. Thereafter, in 1973, the legislature amended the ‘dog-bite statute’ to permit recovery for injuries caused by ‘other animals.’ Harris, 119 Ill.2d at 547. Currently, to recover under the Act for an injury caused by a dog or other animal, a ‘plaintiff must prove four elements: “(1) an injury caused by an animal owned by the defendant; (2) lack of provocation; (3) the peaceable conduct of the injured person; and (4) the presence of the injured person in a place where he has a legal right to be.”’ Smith v. Lane, 358 Ill.App.3d 1126 (2005), quoting Meyer v. Naperville Manner, Inc., 262 Ill.Dec. 572 (1994). Courts have interpreted the Act ‘to provide coverage…[only to] plaintiffs who, by virtue of their relationship to the owner of an animal or lack of any such relationship, may not have any way of knowing or avoiding the risk the animal poses to them.” J. Greiman, Johnson v. Johnson, 386 Ill.App.3d 522, 539 (Ill. 2008)