Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (2012) (punctuation omitted); accord Custer, 293 Ga. App. at 319 (2). 8 Stennette v. Miller, 316 Ga. App. 425, 428 (1) (b) (729 SE2d 559) (2012) (punctuation omitted) (emphasis supplied); accord Kringle v. Elliott, 301 Ga. App. 1, 2 (686 SE2d 665) (2009); Durham v. Mooney, 234 Ga. App. 772, 773 (1) (507 SE2d 877) (1998). 9 Durham, 234 Ga. App. at 773 (1); accord Torrance v. Brennan, 209 Ga. App. 65, 67 (2) (432 SE2d 658) (1993). 10 See Kringle, 301 Ga. App. at 2 (“[I]n order to infer the requisite knowledge!,] there must be at least one incident that would cause a prudent person to anticipate the actual incident that caused the injury.” (punctuation omitted) (emphasis supplied)); Durham, 234 Ga. App. at 773 (1) ( ng that there was a jury question regarding whether the dog owne 96 (1) (<HOLDING>); Huff v. Dyer, 297 Ga. App. 761, 763 (1) (678 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an animal clinic was entitled to summary judgment in a personalinjury action in which the plaintiff was bitten by one of its dogs when it was undisputed that the dog had never bitten or harmed anyone before the relevant incident (B) holding that a county was entitled to summary judgment where the claims against the individual defendants had failed (C) holding that dog owners were entitled to summary judgment either under the premisesliability or dangerousanimalliability theories when the dog that bit the plaintiff had never previously attacked or bitten a human and the owners had no superior knowledge of the dogs propensity to bite (D) holding that the owner of a dog who bit the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment when although the dog had previously jumped on the plaintiff in an aggressive manner the dog did not attempt to bite or scratch and the plaintiff conceded that she was unaware of any prior instance when the dog had bitten a person (E) holding that when there was no surprise and no prejudice defendant was entitled to rely on defense of accord and satisfaction in its summary judgment motion even though it was not included in the pleadings
Output (English): holding that dog owners were entitled to summary judgment either under the premisesliability or dangerousanimalliability theories when the dog that bit the plaintiff had never previously attacked or bitten a human and the owners had no superior knowledge of the dogs propensity to bite