In Case A, a Man Is Walking His Alsatian Dog

Multiple Choice

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?

A) 'Case A must be distinguished on the facts. In case A, and indeed all the previous cases, the dog in question had bitten a person or another animal. Consequently, the House had not considered the possibility of a dog causing any other type of injury. It cannot have been the intention of the House to impose liability for any injury other than that caused by biting.'
B) 'We are bound by the Supreme Court' decision in case A
C) 'Case A must be overturned; indeed, it is an incorrect statement of the law.'
D) 'The House, in case A, had clearly considered all repercussions of imposing liability for any injury caused and, consequently, the decision must be followed. If this were not the case, then the owner could escape liability for serious attacks but where the victim had not actually been bitten.