It's ambiguous, wow, and relevant to the case. If Mr. Williams was chained up in *his owner's yard, how close was it to the dog's owner's yard and how long was the chain on the dog? If it was long enough for the dog to get into Mr. Williams's owner's yard perhaps the dog *was negligent and deserved to be sued by Mr. Williams (although I should think that Mr. Williams's owner might be more likely to have the right to sue here for damage to *his property). On the other hand, if Mr. Williams was chained up in the *dog's owner's yard, perhaps Mr. Williams's owner should be suing for deprivation of property rights. Unless, of course, Mr. Williams was being chained up in the dog's owner's yard because he (Mr. Williams) had been caught by the dog's owner ravishing his (the dog's owner's) rabbits or some such crime against property.
I don't think *I'm having any problem with complex thought, here, wow. I think you're oversimplifying the situation.
