GOENNENWEIN BY GOENNENWEIN v. Rasof

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• court held that four-year-old plaintiff was required to prove that defendant dog owner knew or should have known dog was dangerous to children
• “It is presumed that a dog is tame, docile, and harmless absent evidence that the dog has demonstrated vicious propensities.”
• court held that four-year-old plaintiff was required to prove that defendant dog owner knew or should have known dog was dangerous to children
• landlord not liable where owner is on premises and in control of animal at time of attack
• Property owner who exercised no degree of care, custody, or control over her son’s dog, who bit owner’s minor guest while on owner’s premises, was not dog’s “owner” within meaning of Animal Control Act.
• “[W]here the owner of the animal is present and in control of it, the property owner cannot be considered an ‘owner’ under the Act merely because the property owner has permitted the animal to be on the premises.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).