Illinois

Summary: This Illinois statute provides that nothing in the Animal Control Act shall be held to limit the power of any municipality to prohibit animals from running at large, nor shall anything in this Act be construed to limit the power of any municipality to further control and regulate dogs, cats or other animals in such municipality or other political subdivision provided that no regulation or ordinance is specific to breed.

Summary: The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.

Summary: This act stipulates that an equine sponsor or professional, or any other person, is immune from liability for the death or injury of a participant, which resulted from the inherent risks of equine activities. However, there are exceptions to this rule; a person will be held liable for injuries of an equine activity participant if he or she displays a willful and wanton or intentional disregard for the safety of the participant and if he or she fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the participant. In addition, a person will also be held liable for the injury of an equine activity participant if he or she is injured on the land or at a facility due to a dangerous latent condition of which was known to the equine sponsor, professional or other person.

Summary: This collection of statutes provides that the title of all wild birds and mammals rests with the state. A new section in 2011 vests the Department of Natural Resources with the ability to control the possession and release of species deemed exotic or invasive. Other sections concern the possession of certain wild birds and animals. Possession of any listed wild bird or its parts (including the eagle) is illegal under the statute, except for the bona fide scientific or zoological exhibition.

Summary: This comprehensive Humane Care of Animals Act from Illinois gives the requisite anti-cruelty provisions. "Animal" means every living creature, domestic or wild, but does not include man. Notably, the Act includes a provisions for psychological counseling for a person convicted of violating this section. An individual is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense and a second or subsequent violation is a Class 4 felony with every day that a violation continues constituting a separate offense. The Act includes special provisions for juveniles and "companion animal hoarders" (510 ILCS 70/2.10). The cruelty provisions are listed at 510 ILCS 70/3.01, 3.02, and 3.03. The statute also prohibits the marketing and distribution of depictions of animal torture or cruelty for entertainment purposes (510 ILCS 70/3.03-1).

Summary: Historical Law: The first part of this Statute details the incorporation of the Illinois Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.  The second part of the statute describes various laws concerning the treatment of animals.

Summary: This Illinois action brings forth the claims of four sets of plaintiffs for various claims against defendant-veterinarian. While the specific facts concerning the alleged wrongdoings are not provided, it appears that defendant was a veterinarian who operated a medical center and animal boarding facility. Plaintiffs all raise four counts against defendant (breach of contract, negligence, malpractice, and bailment) for the deaths of their dogs. From each set of facts, the various plaintiffs allege that their dogs were in good health prior to boarding their dogs at defendant’s facility, and each dog subsequently died in its cage. In the negligence and malpractice counts, the plaintiffs note that defendants failed to provide an adequate environment to ensure the dogs’ safety, failed to provide adequate ventilation, failed to sterilize the boarding area after sick animals had been housed there, and then failed to properly preserve the companion animals to ensure accurate necropsies, among other things. All plaintiffs sought both actual damages for the loss of their companions as well as damages related to their “reasonable sentimental value.”

Summary: This Naperville, Illinois ordinance provides the standards to determine whether a business is a veterinary office or a pet care establishment. For a veterinary office, pets are only allowed outside between the hours of 7 AM to 10PM if they are on a leash and handled by a single employee; excrement must be picked up daily and noise levels generated by the animals cannot exceed the city’s noise performance standards. For a pet care establishment, pets are allowed to be outside without a lease or direct employee supervision, but the outside area must be fenced and cleared of excrement daily; pet care establishments are also permitted to provide emergency medical treatment or nonprofessional care associated with an existing medical problem. The zoning provisions associated with either establishment are also included.

Summary: Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for violation of the Animal Control Act and alleged negligence due to the broken leg that the Plaintiff suffered after she was kicked by Defendant’s horse while trying to pass the horse on a group ride.   At the time of the accident, the defendant was neither an “equine activity sponsor” nor an “equine professional” according to the Act.   The issue was whether the Act applied only to those two groups of people, and the court held that the Act does not preclude negligence liability for persons other than equine activity sponsors and equine professionals.

Summary: Plaintiff, a participant in a horse show, was injured when a stallion bucked and kicked him; he sued the show’s sponsor, and the stallion’s rider and owner alleging negligent and willful and wanton misconduct, by failing to conduct background checks into the horses and by failing to separate the stallions participating in the show, inter alia .   The Equine Activity Liability Act, which was established to shield those persons who participate in equine activities from liability, provides an exception to the general rule by permitting liability for equine activity sponsors that commit “an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, and that act or omission caused the injury.”   In this case, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that showed that the defendants behaved in a reckless or intentional manner, therefore the summary judgment in favor of the defendant entered by the trial court was founded to be proper.