{
  "id": 1581452,
  "name": "William Dobrin, a Minor, by Sidney Dobrin, His Father and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elmer C. Stebbins, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dobrin v. Stebbins",
  "decision_date": "1970-03-11",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 53,188",
  "first_page": "387",
  "last_page": "391",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 Ill. App. 2d 387"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "232 NE2d 277",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 Ill App2d 2",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        8498900
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/88/0002-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 Ill App 634",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5291017
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/94/0634-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 NE2d 8",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 Ill App2d 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2547781
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/87/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 NE2d 811",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill App2d 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5275868,
        5275461
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/50/0100-01",
        "/ill-app-2d/50/0100-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 NE2d 872",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 Ill App2d 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5301299
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/61/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 NYS 545",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.",
      "year": 1934,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 Misc 646",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Misc.",
      "case_ids": [
        8837649
      ],
      "year": 1934,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/misc/153/0646-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 NYS 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.",
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 App Div 723",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "A.D.",
      "case_ids": [
        4749072
      ],
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ad/212/0723-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 NE2d 385",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 Ill2d 605",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2730179
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/21/0605-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 NE2d 814",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 Ill App2d 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1585450
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/118/0264-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 411,
    "char_count": 5342,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.592,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1291700855703741e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5753897234935319
    },
    "sha256": "423b5ed22590df2762cf94bee1134a75d7e265b88f4347bdd3847042501ed6f6",
    "simhash": "1:a31fe9e017b9eb58",
    "word_count": 918
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:54.032479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Dobrin, a Minor, by Sidney Dobrin, His Father and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elmer C. Stebbins, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE LEIGHTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn a non jury trial, plaintiff recovered a judgment against defendant for personal injuries he suffered when he was bitten by defendant\u2019s dog. Although plaintiff, who is the appellee in these proceedings has not filed a brief, we will review this appeal on the merits. Daley v. Jack\u2019s Tivoli Liquor Lounge, Inc., 118 Ill App2d 264, 254 NE2d 814.\nThe facts are not in dispute. On July 16, 1964, defendant was the owner of a toy German Shepherd. He chained it to a pipe so that the dog was confined within defendant\u2019s property at 6225 West 79th Street in the City of Chicago. Plaintiff, then 17 years of age, was selling magazines. There was no sign or posted notice on defendant\u2019s property warning salesmen or others to keep off. Plaintiff went to defendant\u2019s home. He walked up a dirt path that led from the sidewalk. When plaintiff was within five or ten feet of the door, defendant\u2019s dog jumped on plaintiff, bit him in the abdomen and on the thigh. After getting away, plaintiff was taken to a nearby clinic where he received treatment for his injuries. Later in the day he visited his family doctor, who replaced the bandages and gave him a tetanus shot. Pain from the dog bites lasted three or four days. Plaintiff\u2019s doctor submitted a bill which was paid.\nPlaintiff filed suit against defendant and invoked what is colloquially the \u201cDog Bite Statute,\u201d Ill Rev Stats 1963, c 8, \u00a7 12 (d), which provides:\nDogs attacking or injuring person \u2014 Liability of owner. If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself in any place where he may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term \u201cowner\u201d includes any person harboring or keeping a dog. The term \u201cdog\u201d includes both male and female of the canine species.\nAfter hearing evidence, the trial judge awarded plaintiff damages in the sum of $750. Defendant appeals. He contends that plaintiff was a trespasser when he entered defendant\u2019s property; therefore, no judgment could be recovered under the statute. In the alternative, defendant contends that the damage award was excessive.\nA trespasser is one who does an unlawful act or a lawful act in an unlawful manner to the injury of the person or property of another. 87 CJS, Trespass, \u00a7 1; see People v. Goduto, 21 Ill2d 605, 174 NE2d 385. By this definition, plaintiff was not a trespasser on defendant\u2019s land when he went there during the ordinary hours of the day to solicit magazine subscriptions.\nAn owner of property who provides a path or walk from the public way to his door, without some indication (sign, posting of notice or words) warning away those who seek lawful business with him extends a license to use the path or walk during the ordinary hours of the day. Persons who thus make use of the path or walk are licensees. Restatement, Second, Torts, \u00a7 332, Comment b; Stacy v. Shapiro, 212 App Div 723, 209 NYS 305 (1925); Reuter v. Kenmore Building Co., 153 Misc 646, 276 NYS 545 (1934). Our decision in Messa v. Sullivan, 61 Ill App2d 386, 209 NE2d 872 supports this view. Therefore, plaintiff was a licensee on defendant\u2019s land when he was bitten by defendant\u2019s dog. He was in a \u201c[p]lace where he may lawfully be . . .\u201d within the meaning of Ill Rev Stats 1963, c 8, \u00a7 12 (d).\nThis being so, proof that plaintiff while peaceably conducting himself and without provocation, was injured by defendant\u2019s dog justified entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. Beckert v. Risberg, 50 Ill App2d 100, 199 NE2d 811; Bailey v. Bly, 87 Ill App2d 259, 231 NE2d 8.\nThe damages the trial judge awarded plaintiff were within the limits of fair and reasonable compensation. Johnson v. Eckberg, 94 Ill App 634; Sesterhenn v. Saxe, 88 Ill App2d 2, 232 NE2d 277. Judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nSTAMOS, P. J. and DRUCKER, J., concur.\nSUPPLEMENTAL OPINION\nDefendant petitions for rehearing on the ground that when plaintiff came upon defendant\u2019s property, he saw the dog that bit him. Defendant argues that the best warning a property owner can give to those who may come upon his land is his dog chained, in plain view and standing guard. Defendant contends that presence of his dog in this way was constructive notice to the plaintiff that he could enter defendant\u2019s property only at his peril.\nWe agree that a dog chained to guard its owner\u2019s property where it can be seen, is notice that entry on the land is forbidden. However, the record in this case does not support defendant\u2019s contention. Both plaintiff and the defendant testified that there were bushes on either side of the front door to defendant\u2019s home. Plaintiff testified that he never saw defendant\u2019s dog before it bit him because it \u201cmust have come out of the bushes . . . .\u201d In other words, defendant\u2019s dog was not where plaintiff could see it. The petition for rehearing is denied.\nPetition for rehearing denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE LEIGHTON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas P. Cernek, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "No brief for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Dobrin, a Minor, by Sidney Dobrin, His Father and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elmer C. Stebbins, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 53,188.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nMarch 11, 1970.\nRehearing denied and supplemental opinion May 13, 1970.\nThomas P. Cernek, of Chicago, for appellant.\nNo brief for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0387-01",
  "first_page_order": 393,
  "last_page_order": 397
}