Animal Control- Running at Large Act
Keith Allendorf was an employee of Mr. and Mrs. Clifford Redfearn. He also lived on their farm. On August 15, 2008 the Redfearn's bull escaped and ran loose. The Redfearns asked for Keith's assistance to retrieve the bull and equipped him with the their ATV to facilitate the search. While in the process of pursuing the bull, Keith was injured when he struck a tree stump. As a result, he broke several ribs.
Mr. Allendor filed suit and alleged in his complaint that the defendants violated the Running at Large Act, in that the bull was the proximate cause of injury and that the bull was improperly restrained. Count II of the complaint was for common law negligence. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing the ATV accident was not in the scope of harm addressed by the Running at Large Act. The defendants also argued that the ATV statute in the Illinois Motor Vehicle code exempts property owners from negligence for ATV accidents occurring on their property. The motion to dismiss was denied and the trial court certified two questions to the Illinois Appellate Court.
First, the trial court asked if the ATV statute barred the plaintiff’s negligence claim. The appellate court held that it did not because the statute exempts “owner[s] lessee[s], or occupant[s] from the negligence claims of “others.” 625 ILCS 5/11-1427(g). Mr. Allendorf not fall within the meaning of “others” and was more like an owner, occupier, or agent because he resided on the property and was an employee of the defendant. In addition the Court looked at the fact that he was driving the ATV with permission in exchange for valuable consideration and as such fell within another exception to the statute.
The second certified question asked if the plaintiff could bring a claim under the Running at Large Act. The appellate court held that the plaintiff could not and held the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss was proper. “All owners” of livestock shall refrain and prevent livestock from running at large and “shall be liable for all damages occasioned by such animals running at large.” 510 ILCS 55/1. The court concluded that the plaintiff status was within the scope of “owner” because the plaintiff stood in a special relationship to the animal as an employee of the farm and because the plaintiff was attempting to exercise dominion and control over the bull at the time of the accident.
The court ruled that the plaintiff's relationship with the animal would put him on notice of the dangers of this animal and thus he could not recover under the statute.
Allendorf v. Redfearn, 2011 WL 3105714
