The issue of this case is John left his gate open which causes Albert to be bitten by his dog.
Albert has a higher chance of winning the case against John.
John is liable for the injuries that his dog has cause on Albert because he left his gate open
carelessly. This is under the Tort of Negligence as John would have locked the gate instead
of unlocked.
On the other hand, if John has a Sign warning the passer-by “Beware of Dogs”, it could
benefits John in the case. Dogs are protective of their territory naturally and by putting up
warning signs or “beware of dog” signs, it will warn people prior to entering your property
they could be at risk, and this can protect the dog owner legally. Most people will not just
enter the property that has a warning sign that places them in danger of a dog bite.
If Albert saw the sign before he passes the house, means he has already accept or ignore
the risk and aware the danger of getting bitten by the dog. He could have avoided to the
walk near the house when he saw the gate is left open. Because Dogs are protective of
their territory; the dog could have been provoked when it thought that Albert is trying to
enter the premises although Albert claims that he was in no way provoking the dog. As a
Result, the Dogs escape out of the house to chase and injure Albert.
(Robin, Sayers v Harlow UDC)In this case, a woman is trapped inside a cubicle which has
