>If a dog mauls someone, it’s the owner that’s responsible. This is basic common law, long established.

That's specifically not what the court case says.

>Malice is implied when the killing is proximately

>caused by “ ‘an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life,

>which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct

>endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life

https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-knoller-33726

The rest of the court case also mentions a long history of the dog being dangerous and the owner failing to restrain the dog.