Hipskind & McAninch Files Suit Over Dog’s Death at Highland Boarding Kennel: Is It Time for Illinois to Stop Treating Pets Like Property?
A lawsuit over the death of a young hunting dog raises a larger question: Has Illinois law fallen behind modern families?
When Billy and Tina Greenwald boarded their twelve-week-old Llewellin Setter puppy, Birdie, they believed they were leaving her in capable hands.
According to a lawsuit recently filed by Hipskind & McAninch, Birdie suffered fatal injuries while in the care of a Highland boarding kennel and never came home.
The complaint alleges that Birdie, a young puppy with no history of aggression, was entrusted to the boarding facility with the expectation that she would receive proper care, supervision, and protection. Birdie had been purchased for a substantial amount as a future hunting companion. But to the Greenwald family, she was more than a purchase price. She was a beloved puppy they trusted someone else to protect.
Instead, the lawsuit alleges that Birdie was placed in circumstances that allowed another dog to attack her, causing catastrophic injuries that ultimately resulted in her death while she was under the defendants’ exclusive control.
The complaint further alleges that the defendants failed to exercise reasonable care, failed to adequately supervise the dogs in their custody, failed to maintain safe boarding practices, and failed to fulfill promises made to customers about the care and protection of boarded animals.
The lawsuit seeks damages under several legal theories, including negligence, breach of contract, bailment, consumer fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and spoliation of evidence. Those allegations remain to be proven in court, and the defendants have not yet filed their response.
While this lawsuit seeks accountability for one family’s loss, it also raises a much bigger question:
Should Illinois law continue treating the loss of a beloved pet primarily as a property loss?
The Law Still Treats Dogs as Property
Illinois law has long classified dogs and other companion animals as personal property. That classification has real consequences.
When negligence causes the death of a companion animal, owners generally cannot recover damages for the emotional loss of their relationship with that pet. Unlike the death of a close family member, Illinois law does not recognize a separate claim for the loss of a pet’s companionship resulting from ordinary negligence.
To the courts’ credit, the law has evolved in some ways. Illinois courts have recognized that many pets have little or no traditional market value and may instead be valued based on their “actual value to the owner.” That can include evidence of specialized training, usefulness, purchase price, and other objective factors rather than simply what someone might pay for the animal on the open market.
But even that approach does not fully reflect the way many families experience the loss of a pet.
Families Already Understand What the Law Struggles to Recognize
Walk into almost any American home with a dog, and the gap between the law and real life becomes clear.
Dogs sleep in bedrooms. They ride in cars. Families celebrate their birthdays. People spend thousands of dollars on veterinary care, training, boarding, specialized diets, rehabilitation, and emergency treatment.
That is not how most families think about ordinary property. For many people, a dog is not just something they own. It is part of the household.
Illinois has already recognized that companion animals deserve special consideration in at least one important context. In divorce proceedings, courts are directed to consider the well-being of the companion animal when deciding ownership, rather than treating the animal the same way they would treat furniture or a bank account.
That raises a fair question: If Illinois law recognizes that pets are different when a marriage ends, should the law also recognize that the wrongful death of a companion animal is different from damage to ordinary property?
Accountability Protects Other Families, Too
Cases like Birdie’s are not just about money—ultimately, they are about responsibility.
Families rely on boarding facilities because they cannot always be home. Those businesses advertise safety, supervision, and professional care. Pet owners make decisions based on those promises. When those promises are not kept, meaningful accountability matters.
Civil lawsuits can help compensate families for their losses, but they can also encourage safer practices. Better staffing, better supervision, better training, better separation protocols, better documentation, and better transparency can all help protect the next pet entrusted to someone else’s care.
That matters because people do not board their pets with strangers lightly. They do it because they believe the facility will take reasonable steps to keep those animals safe. When that trust is broken, the legal system should provide accountability that is meaningful enough to matter — not only for the family involved, but for every family that may rely on those same promises in the future.
A Conversation Illinois Needs to Have
Illinois lawmakers have already shown that companion animals occupy a unique place in modern families.
The next question is whether the civil justice system should reflect that same understanding.
Should damages in appropriate cases better reflect the true relationship between families and their pets? Should the law continue to treat the death of a beloved companion animal the same way it treats damage to other personal property?
Reasonable people can disagree about where the line should be drawn. But the conversation is worth having.
Because for most families, the loss of a pet is not measured only in dollars. It is measured in empty beds, silent homes, interrupted routines, and broken hearts.
At the center of this lawsuit is Birdie, a twelve-week-old puppy who, according to the complaint, was supposed to be cared for and protected while under the defendants’ control. The allegations have not yet been proven in court. But the case raises an issue many Illinois families already understand on a personal level: When a beloved pet is lost because of someone else’s alleged negligence, the harm feels far greater than the loss of property.
Category:
Tags: