Dog attacks may leave you with painful injuries and unexpected medical expenses. When an owner or insurer claims that your actions contributed to the incident, it sometimes becomes difficult to understand whether you could still seek compensation.
Contributory negligence in Chicago dog bites requires careful attention to the legal basis of the claim. A local dog attack attorney from McCready Law could review what happened, explain how Illinois law treats fault, and help you understand the options that may be available after an attack.
State law includes a statute that governs many claims involving injuries caused by dogs. Under 510 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/16, the Animal Control Act makes an owner liable when a dog attacks, attempts to attack, or injures someone without provocation while that person is peaceably conducting themselves in a place where they may lawfully be.
For a person injured in a Chicago dog bite incident, questions about fault and contributory negligence may therefore center on whether they provoked the animal rather than whether the owner knew the dog had previously shown dangerous behavior. The circumstances immediately before the attack may become important when determining whether the statute applies.
An attorney could review witness statements and available video evidence to establish how the encounter unfolded. Medical documentation may also help connect the animal attack to the wounds for which the injured person is seeking compensation.
Provocation and contributory negligence address different issues. The Animal Control Act expressly requires an attack or injury to occur without provocation, and as a result, an owner defending a statutory claim may argue that the injured person acted in a way that caused the dog to respond.
When raising the issue of contributory negligence after a Chicago dog attack, the legal effect may depend on whether the claim arises under the Animal Control Act or under a separate negligence theory. That distinction matters because an allegation that someone behaved carelessly does not automatically establish that they provoked the animal for purposes of the statute.
Evidence surrounding the encounter could help clarify this issue. A personal injury lawyer could examine what the injured person was doing immediately before the attack and whether the dog’s response followed particular conduct.
Some dog injury lawsuits may include a negligence claim in addition to or instead of a statutory claim. Illinois applies modified comparative fault to negligence actions under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116. This bars a plaintiff whose contributory fault is more than 50 percent of the proximate cause of the injury from recovering damages. When the plaintiff’s share of fault is 50 percent or less, the law reduces damages in proportion to that fault.
In a negligence-based dog bite case in Chicago, contributory fault may therefore affect the amount an injured person could recover. The application of this rule depends on the claims they pursue and the evidence showing how their injury occurred.
An attorney could evaluate the available evidence and identify which liability theory fits the circumstances. This review may also help address attempts by an insurer to place an unsupported share of fault on the injured person.
Disputes about fault make a dog bite injury claim more complicated, particularly when the parties disagree about what happened before the animal attacked. To resolve an issue, consideration of contributory negligence in Chicago dog bites must include the Animal Control Act and any negligence theory that may apply.
If a dog bit you, McCready Law could review the circumstances and explain how provocation or comparative fault may affect your claim. Contact the firm today to schedule a consultation with a trustworthy attorney and learn more about your legal options.
