In Little, there was no prior incident or complain about the location of the tree which may give Needham knowledge of the danger. Like in Vega's case, there was no prior incident of causing injury by her tail and customer never complain about Nelly's any behavior, rather the other customer found Nelly's such tendency amusing. Vega may argue that Vega's case is different from Little. She may argue, unlike in Little, where the owner did not know that the tree's location is a danger to the participants, in her case, Jones knew that Nelly has a tendency of flicking the hats off which may cause injury or danger to other. However, Jones can easily counter this argument emphasizing in the decision of Young and Johnson that only knowing such tendency is not itself enough to prove that Jones was willful and wanton disregard for her safety in the absence of any prior incident or Jones response to Nelly's act which shows that Jones believed that injury could occur or there was a potential for …show more content…
Although, it is just an obiter dictum from Georgia court and is not binding on any court, even if, Texas court find it convincing, Vega's situation is distinguishable from Holcomb. Because in Holcomb, the owner noticed that the saddle is beginning to loosen which gave him an immediate knowledge of possible danger but he failed to retighten it. Unlike in Vega's case, there is no evidence which may show that Jones noticed anything wrong which may give him a knowledge that injury could occur or there is a potential of danger which would require him to warn