Friend's dog bit a child, whose fault?

Usually I would say that the dog owner is responsible, but in this case, the girl’s parents are at fault for not teaching their DD that that is not the way to approach any dog.

What the child did was , from a dog’s POV, aggressive. A child won’t know this unless her parents teach her how to behave and monitor her behaviour around dogs. But they’re probably ignorant themselves.

However, I do think having the leash out to 1.5 m around children is risky. So the dog should have been brought to heel as you passed other people and kept to your side away from the people passing.

But then I’ve had a tricky dog in the past and taking her out in a park was an hour of constant monitoring and control of her. Approached as that child fid my dog would have done more than nip! And I secretly wouldn’t have blamed her, however much I know that peoples safety comes before dogs.

Well that really would depend on what the police decided.
Its disgusting that parents can allow their kids to abuse an animal, and then the animal is blamed defending itself.

Because as OP said, the child darted over to the dog, and I'm assuming the owner doesn't have the ability to teleport it away.

The owner of the dog and the parents of the girl were equally at fault. The dog should not have been so far ahead when passing other people. The girl should not have been so far ahead when passing a strange dog. Both the child and the dog were out of the control of their supervisors.

Yes.
Dog owner at fault 100%
Read the law.

Morally it would have been their fault, legally it would (sadly) have been yours.

You are an adult not a four year old (or possibly younger). You would be assaulting a child not being a child.

Parents should teach children not to approach strange animals. Sometimes small children get things wrong.

Dog walkers should keep a short reign on narrow paths, especially in the vicinity of people and keep them to heel on your non people side.

Thankfully the law disagrees with you.

I was walking my dog once and could hear two women and a couple of kids behind me. My dog kept looking back and after a while, I followed her gaze and saw one of the kids walking right behind her, pulling on her tail and just gripping onto it as we walked. The adults were doing nothing to stop it and it absolutely would have been their fault if the kid got bitten.
Dogs arent robots, they're living, breathing creatures. Its about time parents were held just asaccountable for their kids behavior as dog owners are, after all, humans are meant to be the more intelligent species.

My question is, how would YOU react if some big clumsy hand that you didn't see coming would pat your head?

Dogs are animals, they do not have to tolerate abuse from humans. They can defend themselves the only way they know, humans should be aware of that.

The phrase that comes to mind is "well, that'll learn ya!".

Dog owners fault. Park with families and kids, shouldn’t have been on an extended lead. Should have been right beside owner so they could have intervened before the dog was touched and child bitten.

And dogs should never bite children!

It’s the parents fault. It could have been much worse for that girl.

Yep. The lack of understanding around dog behaviour and the law on this thread is pretty terrifying, especially when so many posters claim to be dog owners themselves. The law changed further a few years ago to say that dogs must also be under control on private property - so if (for example) a postman comes into your garden and gets bitten, you can still be held legally responsibly for your dog being out of control.

Unfortunately this just isn't true. If your dog bites someone, you are ALWAYS at fault. In fact, you can even be found at fault if you're not present and someone else is walking the dog when it bites.

As a dog owner, you have a legal responsibility to have your dog under control at all times. A lead can help maintain control but being on a lead is not a legal protection. A dog on a lead can bite, dart into traffic or knock someone over very easily if the owner isn't paying attention. That's why the law states "under control" not just "on a lead".

The person walking the dog has a responsibility to keep it under control - that includes pre-empting any potential situations where the dog is likely to snap. Keeping the dog on a short lead when there are other people nearby or approaching is the most obvious, and simplest, way to achieve this.

Where did I say she's a bite risk? She's never bitten. My friend wasn't trying to prevent harm to the child, she was trying to prevent harm to her dog.

My point was more that had the dog snapped in that scenario my friend was doing everything that could have reasonably been expected, and the dog was under control. Legally she wouldn't be at fault in that scenario, much like if it was another dog as opposed to a child.

I wouldn’t worry. When our NDNs neighbour’s dog escaped, nearly killed a passing dog, bit the man who needed stitches and hospital treatment, the police were not arsed. So I highly doubt they would give a toss about this.

The child did. Read the OP.

" As they walked past the younger girl darted towards the dog"

If it happens again, dog owner is at fault. The owner knows what the dog is capable of.

I have had young children and dogs, and they can both be unpredictable.

If your friends' dog is that much of a bite risk then it should be wearing a muzzle.

Luckily the law very much disagrees with you (assuming you're actually being serious).

Yes, she needs to train her dog a dog that 'doesn't like' children is a walking time bomb get it a muzzle if it is a danger to children.

this