First Assignment: Analyzing Dog Ownership in Franklin v. Duncan

This assignment is a closed memorandum analyzing the case of Franklin v. Duncan, focusing on whether Ms. Duncan can be considered the "owner" of a dog under the Illinois Animal Control Act. The facts involve a dog bite incident at a barbecue. The assignment requires a legal analysis of the provided statutes and case law, specifically sections of the Illinois Compiled Statutes and two controlling cases, to determine if Ms. Duncan's actions constitute ownership under the Act, which would make her liable for civil damages. The student is instructed to draft the "Discussion" section of an office memorandum using the IREARC model, adhering to specific formatting and citation guidelines provided by the professor. The analysis excludes other potential issues raised by the facts and focuses solely on the definition of "owner" within the context of the Act, using only the provided materials.

MEMORANDUM
TO: Junior Attorneys
FROM: Supervising Attorney Prof. Greene
RE: Closed Memorandum Discussion – First Assignment (Franklin v. Duncan)
DATE: August 31, 2016
FACTS
On the Fourth of July, our client, Ms. Sandy Duncan, held a barbecue at her house to
celebrate the holiday. She invited many of her friends and some of her neighbors from the
Whispering Pines development where she lives. Linda Lang lives next door to Ms. Duncan, and
Ms. Duncan invited her to the party, as the two neighbors had become friends over the three
years they both had lived in the development. Ms. Duncan often looks after Ms. Lang’s dog,
Tiger, when Ms. Lang has to leave town or is delayed at work. On those occasions, Ms. Duncan
goes to Ms. Lang’s house to make sure that Tiger has fresh water and sufficient food, and lets
him out for toileting as well. If Ms. Duncan knew Ms. Lang would be very late, or if Ms. Lang
was going to be away overnight, Ms. Duncan would bring Tiger back to her house to socialize
with her Rottweiler, Sweetie. Ms. Duncan keeps some of Tiger’s special food and dog treats at
her house, as well as a spare feeding bowl for Tiger. When Ms. Duncan invited Ms. Lang to the
barbecue, she specifically included Tiger’s name as an invited “guest” on the invitation because
she knew Tiger might be startled by the fireworks, especially if he were left alone. Ms. Duncan
also invited another neighbor, Dr. Stephen Franklin, as well as other neighbors and friends.
On the day of the party, when Ms. Lang arrived with Tiger, Ms. Duncan took Tiger’s
leash and told Ms. Lang to mingle with the other guests and “have a good time.” Most of the
partygoers were outside in the backyard as it was a warm day. Sweetie, Ms. Duncan’s dog, was
also outside roaming around with the guests. The backyard area was very busy as there was a
barbecue fired up, a self-serve bar and a buffet table of food. A few people were playing with a
soft (nerf) football. Ms. Duncan kept Tiger on his leash, however, because Tiger, a miniature
Poodle, kept wanting to run after the nerf football, but he was very small and could easily get
trampled on as there were a lot of people milling around the grass area. Ms. Duncan enjoyed
socializing with her guests and showing off Tiger, who was wearing a new collar with fake-
diamond studs. Occasionally she would catch glimpses of Ms. Lang, who was happily mingling
with the other guests. Ms. Duncan let Tiger walk around after Sweetie, but she made sure Tiger
did not eat any of the food that had been dropped on the ground as she knew that would be bad
for the dog. She did not feed Tiger any of his special food she kept in her apartment, nor did she
give him any water during the time she was walking him around the partygoers.
As Ms. Duncan walked Tiger around the grass area, they passed a group of people
playing with the football. One of the players, Dr. Franklin, dove for the ball as it was flying over
his head, and lost his balance. As he was falling to the grass, he flung out his arms to try to stop
his fall, and his left hand smacked Tiger on his head. Tiger yelped in pain, snapped at Dr.
Franklin’s hand, and then bit the hand, tearing through the skin. Dr. Franklin stormed into the
house and found a friend, Len Gomez, to drive him to Sharp Urgent Care, where he received five
1

stitches in his hand. He has now fully recovered but the stitches have left a small scar. Luckily,
Dr. Franklin was up to date on his Tetanus shots and Tiger was up to date on his Rabies shots, so
neither Tiger nor Dr. Franklin needed follow up care.
Dr. Franklin has now sent a demand letter to Ms. Duncan seeking damages for the injury
to his hand. He claims he was emotionally traumatized by being bitten on the hand by a dog
because he is a dentist and he makes his living out of using his hands. He claims that the scar is
disfiguring. He is threatening to file a lawsuit under the Illinois Animal Control Act, which
imposes liability on animal owners when their animals attack another person. The demand letter
alleges that Ms. Duncan was the “owner” of Tiger during the attack for purposes of the Act. Ms.
Duncan has retained our services because she does not consider herself the “owner” of Tiger, and
does not believe she should be liable for the bite.
Orig. source Prof. Oster.
Instructions
Assignment: Please analyze whether Ms. Duncan can be considered the owner of Tiger
under the Illinois Animal Control Act (Act). Another junior attorney has researched this issue,
located the applicable sections of the Act, and found two controlling cases that address the issue
of whether a person is an “owner” under the Act. These cases are attached to this memorandum
together with the applicable code sections. Please address this issue only – do not address any
other issues that may be raised by the facts of this case or discussed in your attached cases.
At this point, you will just be drafting the “Discussion” section of an office memorandum using
the IREARC model.
Allowable Materials: You may use and cite to only the attached materials (two statutes
and two cases). You should use all of these materials in completing this assignment, but only
these materials. Assume (for purposes of this assignment) that these materials make up the entire
body of law on the issue of dog ownership in Illinois. Although the attached cases may rely on
other cases for various points, you should cite only to your two cases. (This limitation is for
purposes of this assignment only. As the semester progresses, we will discuss how you should
appropriately cite to secondary and primary authority contained within the cases on which you
are relying because in “real life” you should always read the authorities on which you rely.) You
may also consult your textbook and any handouts you have received in this class.
Collaboration Policy: Do all of your own work on this assignment. You may only
discuss this assignment with me or Xiao. Do not ask anyone to read, review, edit, comment on,
or proofread your writing. If you have any questions, please ask us.
Citation: Citation is not required for this assignment. However, for those students
who would like to begin learning how to cite, I have provided provide you with the correct
Bluebook citations for this memorandum below; but do not worry too much if you do not yet
understand how to cite appropriately. We will be discussing correct citation format later on in
the semester. For now, use these guidelines:
2

 Statutes: The first time you cite to a statute, cite it in full citation format as 510 Ill.
Comp. Stat 5/2.16 or 510 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/16. If you refer to the statute in text, you
can refer to it as the Animal Control Act.
 After the first citation to the statutes, you can “short” cite to them as Stat. 5/2.16 or
Stat 5/16. When you discus the statutes in a textual sentence, you can “short” cite to
them as “the Act.”
 Cases: When you have derived your idea or rule from a case, the FIRST time that
you cite to the case use the full case name and address (full citation) e.g.
Goennenwein v. Rasof , 695 N.E.2d 541, 542 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) or Docherty v.
Sadler, 689 N.E.2d 332, 333 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). You should include a PINPOINT
CITE that tells the reader from what page you are citing.
 AFTER you have cited to the case once, you can then use the term Id. if you are
citing to the exact same cite, or Id. at x if you are citing to the same case but a
different page. You can also use a short cite for the case such as Goennenwein, 695
N.E. 2d at x or Docherty, 689 N.E. 2d at y, if the prior cities not the same case.
 As noted above, try not to cite to the cases discussed in these two cases (you will
learn how to do so later on.) If you have derived a rule or idea from both cases, you
should list both cases in your citation.
Format:
 Use 13 point Times New Roman (or its equivalent) font with standard double spacing
and one-inch margins on the top, bottom, left and right margins.
 Do not justify your right margin.
 Number your pages on the bottom center.
 Staple your document.
Caption: Copy the memorandum caption from this assignment, except put my name in
the “TO” field, your name in the “FROM” field, and update the “DATE” field
appropriately. The information in the caption should be aligned (tab over to line up).
Page Limit: Three to four pages.
Submission & Deadline: Please email a copy of your document to me by 10 p.m. on
Wednesday, September 7. Email to [e-mail]. In the subject line please
use the following: “LWR LLMC Closed Memo First Draft.” Please make sure your
name is on the first page of your Discussion.
3

Illinois Compiled Statutes 510 ILCS 5 Animal
Control Act. Sections 5/2.16 and 5/2.16
[Edited for Educational Purposes]
(510 ILCS 5/16) (from Ch. 8, par. 366)
Sec. 16. Animal attacks or injuries. If a dog or other animal, without
provocation, attacks, attempts to attack, or injures any person who is
peaceably conducting himself or herself in any place where he or she may
lawfully be, the owner of such dog or other animal is liable in civil damages. [
]
(510 ILCS 5/2.16) (from Ch. 8, par. 352.16)
Sec. 2.16. "Owner" means any person having a right of property in an
animal, or who keeps or harbors an animal, or who has it in his care, or acts
as its custodian. [ (Source: P.A. 93-548, eff. 8-19-03; 94-639, eff. 8-22-05.)
4