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.' 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. Which of the following arguments might the counsel for the defence put forward?

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. Which of the following would be the narrowest facts?

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'. Which of the facts deemed to be material by the academic commentator in case 1 have now been deemed to be immaterial by the Court of Appeal?