This will depend on the jurisdiction.
In the United Kingdom, I think more information is needed. In Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington, Lord Atkin made it clear that
[Failing to control dogs] is a liability which exist only in the case either of wild animal, which have by their nature a mischievous propensity, or of tame animals which are known to the persons having control to have a particular mischievous propensity.
In that case, the dog owner didn't know that his dog will behave harmfully to public and kept his dog inside a locked car. Later, that dog went mad and smashed the window, which caused injury to the pedestrians walked by. The court ruled that the owner need not to be liable to his dog's act as he do not know his dog will commit such act.
For the USA:
In McQuaker v Goddard, Scott LJ explained that, as a common law rule, wild animals are presumed to be dangerous to people, while domestic animals are not. Therefore, unless the owner of a domestic animal know that the animal could have propensity to hurt human being (or property), there is no liabilty upon the owner.
So, in order to claim from the owner, you need to show the court that he is aware of the potential danger and he negligently forget to protect the public safety. Hope it helps :)