Efren Cornejo sued his neighbor after the neighbor's dog first bit him and then, the next day, charged at him again, causing him to fall and injure his shoulder while trying to escape. The trial court granted summary judgment on both strict-liability and negligence theories. The Court of Appeals of Georgia split the result. It affirmed dismissal of the strict-liability claim because Georgia does not impose strict liability on dog owners in these circumstances, but it revived the negligence claim. The court held that the first day's scratch-and-bite incident, which occurred in the owner's presence, created a genuine issue of fact about whether the owner knew of the dog's vicious propensity before the second-day charging incident.