In the scenario involving Joan's lawsuit against Andy regarding his dog, which of the following statements is FALSE?

In the context of Joan's lawsuit against Andy regarding his dog, the statement that Andy is automatically absolved of all liability is indeed false. In many jurisdictions, pet owners can be held liable for the actions of their pets, especially if the pet causes harm to another person. This liability often does not require the injured party to prove negligence if the situation fits a strict liability standard, which applies in dog bite cases or if the dog has a known history of aggression.

Moreover, it's important to understand that legal principles often give individuals the right to seek damages from pet owners based on the actions of their animals. Joan, in this case, has the right to file for damages if she has sustained injuries or losses due to Andy’s dog. This right exists in conjunction with the possibility that Andy may indeed be held liable for any harm his dog causes. While proving negligence may be a requirement in some cases, it is not a universal prerequisite in all situations involving dog-related incidents. Therefore, stating that Andy is automatically absolved of all liability misrepresents the legal principles at play.