Friend's dog bit a child, whose fault?

Girl shouldn't have patted the dog, but kids are unpredictable.

If a dog is on a lead, it should be at heel. I absolutely hate dogs on a long lead. If a dog is off the lead then it has space to move away. Being on a lead, but not under control is the absolute worst combination. .

Christ. If they'd put one tenth of the work they put into making threats and following you around the park into teaching their kids not to run up to and hit dogs, there'd be no issue at all.

This is why as a responsible dog owner you never put your dog in this position in the first place, if your dog is 1.5 metres away from you, it isn't under control, or being protected from unwanted attention.

It was absolutely preventable and 100% the dog owners fault that it bit someone, and I say that as a dog owner with sympathy for their situation, kids are unpredictable because they don't know any better, I always walk my dogs on the opposite side of people passing, always to heel, in case anyone does anything stupid, like squeal or jump at the dog, or try and grab it or stroke it.

Unfortunately there's a lot of dog owners out there who think their dogs should be able to do whatever they like, which is when you end up with situations like this, usually followed by 'well they've never done THAT before!'

I have a six year old who is terrible for going up to dogs and stroking them.

The problem is children are impulsive and I guess dogs are too. I certainly wouldn’t have behaved as the family did in this situation but I do think an apology wouldn’t go amiss

Luckily the law disagrees with you. Whether the police would follow up or not is another matter, but any decent owner would be absolutely mortified if their dog even tried to nip someone, let alone if they succeeded. The dog needs to wear a muzzle.

Legally - the dogs owner is at fault and if the childs parents do make a complaint I'd expect a visit from the police, possibly dog warden as well/instead of police.

The onus is on the dog owner to prevent such things happening - which in situations like this I think is grossly unfair, but legally, even if you block your dog from the person, TELL the person not to touch your dog, and the person touches your dog anyway and gets bitten you are STILL liable.

Now the police and a court is likely to be pretty reasonable about it, particularly if you can evidence the steps you took to prevent the incident... but thats still a pain in the backside and if you do NOT have evidence and it is a he said/she said situation... not so good, you could end up with a control order.

Morally, of course the childs parents are at fault.

Practically - dog owners should ensure their dog is walking to heel to pass people, with the dog on the far side of them away from whoever they are passing. I would add a muzzle if walking somewhere there are narrow paths and blind corners too, and in fact I would get a muzzle (basket style) and start training that NOW..

I would also get a behaviourist/trainer out to consult and come up with a plan to teach a decent heel and desensitize to passing people/children.

That way IF they get a visit from the police or dog warden, they can clearly demonstrate that they have taken the incident seriously and are taking pro-active steps to prevent it occurring again in the future.

This goes down VERY very well with dog wardens, police and courts, should it come to that, so its worth doing even if you do not think you need to or don't believe you were at fault.

I think the child/family were at fault

I have a middle aged border Collie who loves fuss and will interact with others at the drop of a hat. I love it when children play with her. However with strict guidelines on both sides
-im very wary of babies and toddlers. Both sides can be unpredictable and I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if she snapped at a child. There has been one occasion when she looked as if she'd snap at a toddler. My husband was with her and she was on the lead so removed from the situation and since then we have avoided interactions with small kids.
-from the age of about 3 up, I'll agree with close supervision on both sides....the dog on a tight lead and the parents closely supervising, and the child able to take on board 'gentle hands, don't pull her tail or it will hurt her,' etc
From about 7 up if the child seems sensible and the parents are happy I'm ok for kids to play ball with her or walk her on the lead round the park, again with supervision from both sides.
I do like it when both sides get a positive interaction and love it in when I see kids in the park remember her and want to play with her. She loves chasing bubbles and kids love playing this with

Maybe so, but either way it's the dog owner (and the dog) who will potentially pay the price. A dog control order at best, euthanasia at worst
Complete over reaction in the context described by OP.

According to AI
Provocation: The fact that the child touched the dog's head and startled it acts as clear context/provocation. Courts and authorities look at victim behavior and whether the dog was acting out of normal self-defense or sudden surprise rather than aggressive hunting or unprovoked stalking.

Outcome: With zero injury and a startled reaction, formal criminal prosecution is unlikely unless the police receive a serious complaint or the dog has a history of aggression. However, local authorities could issue a warning or a Community Protection Notice if reported

You're right, if the dog just "tries" to jump, doesn't make contact and doesn't cause an injury, it's highly unlikely that anything will happen.

But, if that dog tries to jump, the other person panics and falls? Then it becomes a whole new ball game. If the dog makes contact and the other person falls and gets injured...then yes, the owner should expect to be taken to court.

Maybe so, but either way it's the dog owner (and the dog) who will potentially pay the price. A dog control order at best, euthanasia at worst.

Both parties are in the wrong. Kid needs to be taught not to pet dogs but the dog should be on a shorter lead and kept away from coming into close contact with people.

Both parties reacted badly.

I'm wondering if anybody knows any stories of a child biting a dog.
No?
Didn't think so.
That is because against a dog, any dog, a child is unable to defend itself. Adults too, for that matter. You can rile and prod and poke somebody else's dog recklessly in a public place, have the dog bite you, and still be able to successfully sue the owner.

The law is based on this and this alone. It's not about blame, it's about protecting those who are defenseless. This means that dogs are seen, in the eyes of the law, in a similar way to weapons.
Loads of dog owners seem to take offence at that. That their dog is viewed as a weapon. "My dog is harmless! I warn others not to touch it! My lovely dog did nothing wrong! I'm a good owner!"

That's completely irrelevant. Being a good owner entails moving past those beliefs, so if a bite happens through provocation as in ops story, muzzle the dog. It is a loaded gun.

The law would disagree. A dog who is under control would not be able to nip someone
The law would deal differently with a dog that nipped a child that touched it without warning and didn't leave a mark than one which causes serious injuries.

I really doubt that an on lead dog that tried to jump in the direction of a passing person would be seized, and the owner taken to court.

What do you mean - ask the owner is it is OK to clap the dog? Are you going to clap the owner? No. Thought not. Then how about ask the dog - which means leave the beast bloody alone! And clap it only if it approaches your first, tail wagging, clearly asking to be clapped. I regularly see the most gorgeous and benign and white borzoi - by the time it finishes its walk, its head positively requires a wash with every child in the area clapping the poor dog with their manky hands. I am one of those morons who feel compelled to pet dogs, and my dh says 'hopefully, hopefully one day'....

Exactly this. I’d say it’s 50:50.

If the dog hadn't been ahead of the owner they might have been able to block the child?

Even if the child had been told not to touch dogs, young kids don't always do as they are told.

Even if a kid asks to stroke the dog you still have to take care that the dog is sitting calmly & the kid not to excited & likely to make a sudden move!

The law would disagree. A dog who is under control would not be able to nip someone.

Yep - the number of oblivious dog owners who seem to think their dog being on a lead automatically means it's under control is actually quite scary.

There is an elderly chap near us who walks his little dog on one of those flexi leads. He walks with a frame and his dog just wanders wherever - into the road, up to other dogs, up to other people - it is in NO WAY under control, even though it's on a lead.

There's a big difference between nipping that hardly leaves a mark and biting. The first one is not an aggressive reaction. No different to a person shouting get away from me.

A bite is obviously an act of aggression and therefore dangerous.

All that happened is the kids got scared. No big deal and they'll know better from now on. It doesn't need to be muzzled.

As someone else said, if it had reacted aggressively, it would have definitely gone for the whole hand.

Well, the law is very simple - your dog must be under control at all times. A dog who is able to turn and bite a child is clearly not under control. So, you as the owner would be responsible for anything that happened.

In the situation you describe, I have to say it sounds like you weren't paying much attention if a strange child could approach and grab your dog without you noticing.

The child's behaviour is of course not great and I'm not defending it, but the law doesn't require parents to have their kids under control in the same way dog owners have to control their dogs.

All this 'it's not the dog owners' fault' and the parents should have done better. Well. Rightly or wrongly, the law takes a different view. An owner cannot simply argue that the child provoked, patted, or "patted/packed" the dog. The law expects owners to keep their animals under proper control at all times, knowing that children may behave unpredictably or misread a dog's signals

Yes. The law is clear. A person doesn't have to be reasonable to make the complaint. For a dog owners, the process is the punishment. Someone who is afraid of dogs walks past, your dog jumps up, the person gets frightened. The offence is "complete". The courts would look at the reasonableness. But in the meantime, the owner may have their dog taken, and a court case hanging over them. In the OP's case, the dog did bite, so the case is pretty much solid and a criminal conviction is a virtual certainty if it went to court.

I don't trust other people's kids around my dog. Especially young kids.

I trust my dog - no problems there. It's the kids I don't trust. They don't know "gentle hands", or when to leave the dog alone now, or not pull tails or ears. And if they do know, they forget and have to be reminded again and again...

And ultimately it's the dog who will always pay the price. Sometimes with its life.

I never trust kids around my dog and if I am around them I watch like a bloody hawk to make sure my dog isn't being hassled.