In case 1, a man was walking his Rottweiler dog in the park. The dog bit a woman in an unprovoked attack. The dog had bitten someone before and the owner was aware of this. The Court of Appeal decided that that the man was liable. According to an academic commentator, the ratio of the case is: 'The owner of a dog that had bitten someone before, where the owner was aware of this, is liable in negligence for any injury caused in a public place.'
In case 2, a woman was walking her German Shepherd dog in the park. The dog bit a child in an unprovoked attack. The dog had never bitten anyone before. The Court of Appeal decides that the woman is liable and that the ratio of case 1 is, in fact, that 'the owner of a dog is liable in negligence for any injury caused in a public place regardless of whether the dog had bitten before or whether the owner was aware of this'.
The ratio of case 1, as decided by the Court of Appeal in case 2, is wider than that given by the original academic commentator.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The academic commentator's interpretation of the ratio from case 1 focuses on the owner's knowledge of the dog's previous behavior, implying liability is contingent upon this awareness. However, the Court of Appeal's decision in case 2 expands this liability to any injury caused by a dog in a public place, regardless of the dog's past behavior or the owner's knowledge, thus broadening the scope of liability beyond the original interpretation.

In Case 1, a Man Was Walking His Rottweiler Dog