Exam 6: The Doctrine of Judicial Precedent

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 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'. 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.' In case 4, a man was walking his Chihuahua dog in the woods. The dog bit a teenager. The dog had never bitten anyone before. The Court of Appeal decide that the man is not liable, stating that: 'We are not bound to follow cases 1, 2 and 3 because a Chihuahua dog cannot be classified as dangerous. Liability was imposed in cases 1, 2 and 3 because the dogs in question were objectively dangerous breeds which are capable of inflicting serious wounds.' Which fact from cases 1, 2 and 3 has now become material?

Complete the following (select all that apply): in order to ascertain the ratio of a case it is essential to read the full judgment because…

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 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.' The ratio of case 3 is narrower than that of case 1.

In case A, a man is walking his Alsatian dog in the park. His dog bites another dog. The question before the Court of Appeal is whether the owner of the Alsatian is liable in negligence on the basis of the principles established by cases 1-4. The Court of Appeal decide by a 2:1 majority that the man is not liable because: 'Liability has only ever been imposed where an objectively dangerous breed of dog has bitten a human being. In this case, the dog in question has bitten another dog and thus the previous cases can be distinguished on the facts.' The dissenting judge, Dawson LJ, states that 'the man should be liable because the Court of Appeal has specifically imposed liability "for any injury caused" in cases 1, 2, and 3'. The Supreme Court decide unanimously. They state that the legal position is now as follows: 'An owner of an objectively dangerous breed of dog will be liable in negligence for any injury caused, whether to a human being or animal, on public or private property.' In case B, a woman is walking a Boxer dog in the park. The dog jumps up at an elderly lady causing her to fall and break her hip. The Court of Appeal have to decide whether the owner of the dog is liable in negligence under the principles set out in case A. If the court wished to find the owner not liable in negligence, which of the following would be the correct reasoning?

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.

Which of the following constitutes ratio?

Complete the following (select all that apply): the ratio decidendi of a case…

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 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'. 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.' In case 4, a man was walking his Chihuahua dog in the woods. The dog bit a teenager. The dog had never bitten anyone before. The Court of Appeal decide that the man is not liable, stating that: 'We are not bound to follow cases 1, 2 and 3 because a Chihuahua dog cannot be classified as dangerous. Liability was imposed in cases 1, 2 and 3 because the dogs in question were objectively dangerous breeds which are capable of inflicting serious wounds.' In case A, a man is walking his Alsatian dog in the park. His dog bites another dog. The question before the Court of Appeal is whether the owner of the Alsatian is liable in negligence on the basis of the principles established by cases 1-4. The Court of Appeal decide by a 2:1 majority that the man is not liable because: 'Liability has only ever been imposed where an objectively dangerous breed of dog has bitten a human being. In this case, the dog in question has bitten another dog and thus the previous cases can be distinguished on the facts.' The dissenting judge, Dawson LJ, states that 'the man should be liable because the Court of Appeal has specifically imposed liability "for any injury caused" in cases 1, 2, and 3'. The Supreme Court decide unanimously. They state that the legal position is now as follows: 'An owner of an objectively dangerous breed of dog will be liable in negligence for any injury caused, whether to a human being or animal, on public or private property.' In coming to this conclusion, the Supreme Court has done which of the following (select all that apply)?

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 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'. 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.' In case 4, a man was walking his Chihuahua dog in the woods. The dog bit a teenager. The dog had never bitten anyone before. The Court of Appeal decide that the man is not liable, stating that: 'We are not bound to follow cases 1, 2 and 3 because a Chihuahua dog cannot be classified as dangerous. Liability was imposed in cases 1, 2 and 3 because the dogs in question were objectively dangerous breeds which are capable of inflicting serious wounds.' The Court of Appeal in case 4 has ___________ cases 1, 2 and 3 on the facts.

Which of the following constitute obiter dicta (select all that apply)?

In the case of Jackson v Swift Travel Ltd, Jackson purchased a coach ticket to travel from Cardiff to Gatwick Airport. The ticket contained conditions stating that Swift Travel would be liable for the cost of the airfare if the client failed to reach the airport on time but excluded Swift Travel from such liability for 'factors out of their control'. In the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal, Morgan LJ stated: 'It was clear to the client upon purchasing the ticket that the company would not be liable for the cost of the airfare if the delay in arriving at the airport was due to factors that could not be reasonably foreseen and were out of the control of the coach company. In this case, a terrorist attack in central London could neither have been reasonably foreseen nor be within the control of the company. This is not to say that there may not be circumstances that are perfectly foreseeable and over which the company can be deemed to have control.' Which of the following are reasonable perceptions of Morgan LJ's decision (select all that apply)?

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?

Obiter dicta will only be binding on a later judge when the statement is directly related to the material facts.

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?

Which of the following statements are incorrect (select all that apply)?

In Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 (Privy Council - see page 199), why was Grant successful?

'One man's obiter may be the next man's ratio.'

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. Only when the reasoning of the court is known can one establish exactly why the court found the man liable.

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.' Which of the following has the academic commentator deemed to be a material fact (select all that apply)?

Which of the following statements are correct (select all that apply)?