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 is 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'.
In case 3, an Alsatian dog bit a postman while in its owner's front garden. The dog had never bitten anyone before. The Court of Appeal decides that the owner is liable on the grounds that 'the principle of liability established in case 2 is applicable, even where the dog is on private property and not in a public place, whether or not the dog has bitten someone before and the owner is aware of this.'
Which of the following facts of case 2 have now become immaterial?
A) That the dog was a German Shepherd.
B) That the dog was in the park.
C) That a postman was bitten.
D) That the dog had not bitten before.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q10: Which of the following constitutes ratio?
A) Jones,
Q11: In case 1, a man was walking
Q12: In case 1, a man was walking
Q13: In case 1, a man was walking
Q14: In case 1, a man was walking
Q16: In case 1, a man was walking
Q17: In case 1, a man was walking
Q18: In case 1, a man was walking
Q19: In case 1, a man was walking
Q20: 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