Rowlette v. Paul, 219 Ga. App. 597, 599 (466 SE2d 37) (1995) (noting that “[i]t is not enough, however, that the possessor of the animal has reason to know that it has a propensity to do harm in one or more specific ways; it is necessary that he have reason to know of its propensity to do harm of the type which it inflicts” (punctuation omitted)); Sutton v. Sutton, 145 Ga. App. 22, 25 (1) (243 SE2d 310) (1978) (noting that the proper test is “whether the one incident was of such nature as to cause a reasonably prudent person to believe that the animal was sufficiently dangerous as to be likely to cause an injury at a later time”). 11 Stennette, 316 Ga. App. at 429 (1) (b); accord Wade, 246 Ga. App. at 460 (1). 12 See Phiel v. Boston, 262 Ga. App. 814, 816-17 (1) (586 SE2d 718) (2003) (<HOLDING>); Durham, 234 Ga. App. at 773 (1) (holding that
holding that a dogs behavior of barking and growling amounted only to menacing behavior insufficient to notify the owner of the dogs propensity to bite holding that where both vessels had the same owner it was not an abuse of discretion to give 75 of the salvage award to the owner holding evidence insufficient to support confinement where record lacked any evidence of an overt act or continuing pattern of behavior holding stock dividend payable to actual owner not owner of record holding that the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the dog owner had undertaken a duty to keep the dogs away from a housekeeper when the housekeeper had asked the dog owner to confine the dog while she cleaned the house and the dog owner complied with her request on previous occasions