Case 1: A man is walking his dog in the park. The dog bites a toddler, who does nothing to provoke the dog. The man is held liable in negligence.
Case 2: A woman's cat bites a teenager who was pulling its tail.
Which of the following statements is correct?
A) The woman in case 2 has been negligent and will therefore be liable.
B) The woman in case 2 will not be liable because her pet is a cat not a dog.
C) The woman in case 2 will be liable because the cat is an animal.
D) The woman in case 2 will not be liable because a dog is a dangerous animal and a cat is not.
E) None of the above
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q2: A man is walking his dog in
Q3: In Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936]
Q4: Complete the following (select all that apply):
Q5: In the case of Jackson v Swift
Q6: Complete the following (select all that apply):
Q7: 'One man's obiter may be the next
Q8: Which of the following constitute obiter dicta
Q9: Obiter dicta will only be binding on
Q10: Which of the following constitutes ratio?
A) Jones,
Q11: In case 1, a man was walking
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents