Which of the following statements best summarizes the relationship between the statutory provision and the case excerpt?

A) The case excerpt broadly interprets the statute

B) The case excerpt narrowly interprets the statute

C) The case excerpt dismisses the statute as inapplicable to the present case

D) The case excerpt invalidates the statute

Statutory Provision

Health Code 244.14. Dogs to be restrained.

A person who owns, possesses or controls a dog shall not permit it to be in any public place or in any open area abutting on a public place unless the dog is effectively restrained by a leash or chain not more than six feet long.

Case Excerpt

In September 2005, the plaintiff sued the defendant and the owner of the house for personal injuries as a result of her encounter with the dog. She alleged a first cause of action based on the defendants' supposed knowledge of the dog's "prior history of vicious propensities"; and a second cause of action for negligence, essentially premised on the local leashlaw, section 244.14 of the City Health Code.

When harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner's liability is determined solely by application of the rule of strict liability for harm caused by a domestic animal whose owner knows or should have known of the animal's vicious propensities. Just last year we unanimously affirmed an appellate level decision rejecting the notion that a negligence cause of action survives in such a case. Here, the defendant's violation of the local leash law is irrelevant because such a violation is only some evidence of negligence, and negligence is no longer a basis for imposing liability, given our decision last year.