ILCS » Chapter 510 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

510 ILCS 5/2.16 (2026)

Owner

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(510 ILCS 5/2.16) (from Ch. 8, par. 352.16)
    Sec. 2.16. Owner. "Owner" means any person having a right of property in an animal, or who keeps or harbors an animal, or who has it in his care, or acts as its custodian, or who knowingly permits a dog to remain on any premises occupied by him or her. "Owner" does not include a feral cat caretaker participating in a trap, spay/neuter, vaccinate for rabies, and return program.
(Source: P.A. 101-295, eff. 8-9-19.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Beggs v. Griffith, 913 N.E.2d 1230 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beggs v. Griffith, 913 N.E.2d 1230 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “Owner In order for Griffith to be liable pursuant to the Animal Control Act, he must necessarily be deemed an "owner" of the horses.”
Carl v. Resnick, 714 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 3× “16 of the Animal Control Act, which defines “owner”: “ ‘Owner’ means any person having a right of property in a dog or other animal, or who keeps or harbors a dog or other animal, or who has it in his care, or acts as its custodian, or who knowingly permits a dog or other…”
Docherty v. Sadler, 689 N.E.2d 332 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 3× “) 510 ILCS 5/2.16 (West 1996). The trial court found minor plaintiff to be an "owner” of the dog and thereby unprotected by the Act: "He was neither an innocent bystander nor a person within the class of persons protected by the [A]ct.”
Wilson v. City of Decatur, 906 N.E.2d 795 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “16 of the Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5/2.16 (West 2006)). She further alleged based “on information and belief’ that the dog was a trained police attack dog that traveled in City police squad cars.”
Goennenwein by Goennenwein v. Rasof, 695 N.E.2d 541 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “Defendant allegedly was an “owner” of the dog under the Animal Control Act (Act) (see 510 ILCS 5/2.16 (West 1996)) because she “harbored” it in her home.”
Howle v. Aqua Illinois, Inc., 2012 IL App (4th) 120207 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “” 510 ILCS 5/2.16 (West 2010). ¶ 46 “To prevail on a claim under the Act, a plaintiff must prove the following: (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…”
VanPlew v. Riccio, 739 N.E.2d 1023 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “The trial court granted the Riccios’ motion for summary judgment as to both counts, reasoning that recovery under the Act was precluded because the plaintiff was an “owner” under the Act’s definition (510 ILCS 5/2.16 (West 1998)). The plaintiff filed this timely appeal,…”
Frost v. Robave, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 581 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “” 510 ILCS 5/2.16 (West 1996). “Person” is defined as: “[A]ny person, firm, corporation, [or] partnership ***.”
Eyrich v. Johnson, 665 N.E.2d 878 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “” 510 ILCS 5/2.16 (West 1994). The trial court acknowledged that "ownership” is normally a fact question for the jury to decide.”
Hayes v. Adams, 2013 IL App (2d) 120681 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “” 510 ILCS 5/2.16 (West 1996). ¶ 11 In order to recover under the Act, the 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…”
Tyrka v. Glenview Ridge Condo. Ass'n, 2014 IL App (1st) 132762 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “The Act defines the word "owner" broadly to include any person "who knowingly permits a dog to remain on any premises occupied by him or her" (510 ILCS 5/2.16 (West 2012)), and it does not require plaintiffs to prove that the defendant knew of a dog's vicious nature.”
O'Keefe v. Gist, 908 F. Supp. 2d 946 (C.D. Ill. 2012). “(See 510 ILCS 5/2.16) Ordinance, 3-1-2 Definitions (emphasis in the original).”
Show all 27 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.