The first count was brought under section 16 of the Animal Control Act (Ill. The plaintiff's complaint, in its final amended form, was in two counts and was against the property owner alone.
![lawrence petta lawrence petta](https://assets-news-bcdn.dailyhunt.in/cmd/resize/400x400_80/fetchdata16/images/83/2b/8f/832b8f4ab158b716b7a770bab63ca7d45f2e052535752db7d012631786e86028.jpg)
It appeared from other testimony of the defendant and Tagler that no written lease was in effect at the time of the plaintiff's injury.
#Lawrence petta trial#
The defendant lived some four blocks from the property, and at trial he testified that he did not know about the fence or the presence of the dog until after the plaintiff was injured. Tagler received complaints from several neighbors, who said that the dog was noisy and messy, and from the upstairs tenant, who said that the dog would bother him as he *499 walked through the backyard Tagler said that he spoke to Groskoph and Welch about these matters. James Tagler, who managed the property for the defendant and who would go there monthly to collect the rent, testified that several months before the injury here he gave Groskoph permission to erect a fence around the backyard. It belonged to Thomas Groskoph and Carol Welch, who occupied the ground floor of a two-story house owned by the defendant another tenant lived on the second floor. The dog weighed about 65 pounds and was said to be a malamute or Alaskan husky. The plaintiff was taken to the hospital and the next day underwent plastic surgery. One of the boys then hit the dog, and it dropped back inside the yard. Without warning, the dog ran toward where the plaintiff and his friends were standing, lunged over the fence, and bit the plaintiff on his nose. After speaking to the other youths, the plaintiff and his friends took up a position along the fence about 10 feet from the others. During their game they went to retrieve the ball from an adjacent alley, where they saw two other boys leaning over a four-foot-high cyclone fence petting a dog. Around 6 o'clock that evening the plaintiff, who was then 11 years old, and two friends were playing football. The injury complained of occurred in Blue Island on August 13, 1981. 3d 503), and we allowed the defendant's petition for leave to appeal (103 Ill.2d R. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, with one justice dissenting ( 139 Ill. 351 through 378) as a harborer of the dog. The dog belonged to tenants of the defendant, Lawrence Petta, and the basis for liability was the defendant's status under the Animal Control Act (Ill.
![lawrence petta lawrence petta](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5a18d94ff6576eb8bfa52c55/1620019434301-ISMPJW02DN2024XSBEW3/Sarah+Lawrence+Photo.jpg)
![lawrence petta lawrence petta](https://thandoratimes.com/flcimgs/slideshow/dhanushs-asuran.jpg)
JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court:įollowing a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook *498 County, the plaintiff, James Steinberg, was awarded $7,508.20 in this action to recover for injuries he sustained as a result of a dog bite. Matthews, of Brenner, Mavrias, Dorn & Alm, of Chicago, for appellant.