1. What was the common law rule for dog bite liability in Illinois prior to the enactment of the statute on animal attacks and injuries? (Nelson v. Lewis) 2. Explain how the statute changed the common law rule? (Nelson v. Lewis) 3. In order to be successful in a lawsuit under the dog-bite statue, what are the four elements a plaintiff must prove? (Messa v. Sullivan) 4. Based on the facts of the hypothetical case above and the case opinions provided below, explain what you would anticipate the defendants' argument to be concerning provocation on the part of Harvey? (Siewerth v. Charleston) 5. What if the provocation is unintentional? a. If the plaintiff provokes a dog unintentionally, can is still be provocation under the statute? (Nelson v. Lewis; Siewerth v. Charleston) b. Based on the cases provided, is a child exempt from the responsibility of his/her acts of provocation under the dog-bite statute? Why or why not? (Nelson v. Lewis; Siewerth v. Charleston) 6. Explain what would be the plaintiffs' best argument in response to the argument on provocation? In other words, argue why there was no provocation by Harvey. (Messa v. Sullivan) 7. Was Harvey in a place he was lawfully allowed to be when the dog bit him? Examine the defendants' arguments on this issue. (Siewerth v. Charleston) 8. Now examine the plaintiffs' arguments on the issue of whether Harvey was in a place he was lawfully allowed to be when the dog bit him. (Dobrin v. Stebbins; Messa v. Charleston) 9. If you were a judge, would you conclude that Harvey was "in a place he was lawfully allowed to be?" Why or why not? What is the most persuasive factor to you? 10. If the plaintiffs can prove all four elements of liability as to Androcles, would Dr. Pedalburg also be liable? Why or why not? Explain. (Steinberg v. Petta)