How would you go about determining whether the Baxter's had breached their duty to Teddy and Mr. Goodright? Suppose in your research you found a statute in your state that reads as follows: "Owners of dogs known to have dangerous propensities Inust adequately restrain such dogs so as to prevent injury to others.\" The Restatement (Second) of Torts 509 provides that A possessor of a domestic animal that he knows or has reason to know has dangerous propensity abnormal to its class, is subject to liability for harm done by the animal to another, although he has used the uprnost care to prevent it from doing the harm. W'hat arguments would you make on behalf of the Baxter's? On behalf of Teddy and Mr. Goodright? If you were to interview Teddy and his parents, what questions would you ask them to help establish that the Baxter's had violated their duty of care