In the case captioned, Claffey v. Huntley, 2021 IL App (1st) 191938 the Illinois Appellate court upheld a verdict in favor of a home owner whose dog allegedly bit the plaintiff (a mail carrier) without provocation. At trial the jury ruled in favor of the homeowner defendant (and by extension the dog). Claffey moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The motion was denied and the Appellate Court affirmed the denial.
Claffey testified that he inserted his hand in the mail slot and it was bitten. He argued that there was no evidence of provocation. The jury and the judge disagreed. The Appellate Court also disagreed, holding that there was evidence of provocation. The explanation:
“In this case the Huntleys secured their dog against contact with outsiders by keeping it insider their home. ‘Securing dogs…is what is expected of a dog owner – it protects the dogs and it protects the innocent public.'” The court further explained that by opening the mail slot, “Claffey encroached on the dog’s isolated environment and exposed himself to risk of harm.” ¶27.
Conclusion: don’t put your hand through the mail slot.
Illinois Procedure and Sanctions Decisions 