Friend's dog bit a child, whose fault?

Yes this.

Owners need to understand their responsibilities under the law.

@karrabee 100% the child's fault.

The dog was on a lead and under control. The child ran up to the dog and thrust a hand towards it so the dog was probably scared.

The parents need to teach their child not to approach other people's dogs without asking. We have a dog and our kids all know not to just pat another dog!

Similar to an accident between a car and a bicycle where both have been careless - the fault is shared but there is a much greater responsibility for the driver/dog owner. If you can seriously harm someone else then jumping straight to ‘but it wasn’t my fault’ when a minor accident happens isn’t a good response - your friend should be thinking about what she needs to do differently to make sure a worse accident doesn’t happen, in a world where small children don’t always know what to do. Especially having a dog like a Staffy, safety should come way way before blame.

This is incorrect and would only be correct if the dog was off lead.

The dog was on a lead, close to the owner and in control. The owner was being responsible. The owner had no control over the child.

The child approached the dog without permission and the dog no doubt felt threatened.

If someone random person walked up to me and patted me on the head I'd instinctively shove them away!

The child created the incident but dog owners need to be in control of their dog in public and in this case they weren't. So despite not being the primary cause of the incident the responsibility for it lies with the dog owner.
The dog needs to be much closer to their humans in future unfair though that may seem.

A dog can't bite a person even if it is on a lead.

Do you think if a dog seriously injured someone a) whilst on a lead and b) after being approached by a child that this would be deemed legal?

If a dog would bite a child that approaches it, the owner must take extra measures e.g. muzzle, walking in isolated spaces.

No. You need to read the law on this one. It's subjective for the person making the complaint. The question is one or reasonableness. Would a reasonable person believer under the circumstances that the dog was dangerous. Noting to do with the dog being on a lead.

I cannot believe what I'm reading.

People should come before pets.

Children should be allowed to run in parks.

Dog owners should be in control of their animals.

Both.

Both parties were expecting the other side to be in control of their responsibilities, neither side were.

If dog were brought to the owners side when passing people this wouldn't have happened.

If child were taught not to approach unknown dogs this wouldn't have happened.

I hope you mean her and not me 🤣

Morally, equal blame lies with the parents of the child, and the dog handler.

Both children and dogs are unpredictable.

A sensible parent would have taken her dd's hand when approaching a stranger dog.

A sensible dog owner would have taken hold of their dog's collar.

In law, the dog owner would be in the wrong, having a dog that was dangerously out of control.

But the child's parents have broken no laws, whereas the dog's owners have.
The law is clear where the responsibility lies.

No, it is you who are incorrect. In law, the dog was not under control if it bit someone, regardless of how unreasonable that seems to you.

As a dog owner my dog is never off lead unless in a dog park/secure private field because he has poor recall, but not aggressive.
When we are walking he is often on an extendable lead but if we approach others he is brought to heel so there would be.no chance of a child even attempting to stroke him. Children don't have adult brains , we know not to approach dogs, children can be told but often forget in the moment.

In my view the parents of the child were at fault but the dogs owner was also at fault and because events like this could be extremely dangerous for the dog ie if police are called, then it is the dogs owner who has to be more vigilant, ensuring this events CAN'T occur.

That's not true either. The law recognises that a provoked dog will snap or even bite for a start. If you were to go up to a dog in the street and kick it, for example, no one is going to prosecute the owner because you happen to get bitten.

The child should not have touched the dog without checking first with the owner.

Having said that, my Gds, maybe 8 at the time, and from a dog loving family, asked the owners of a massive black cane corso (I think) in a pub, whether it was OK to stroke it.
Owner said yes, fine.
So he did, and the dog nipped him!

Pleased to say he has not in the least been put off dogs, though.

The post doesn't mention an extendable lead. Also 1.5m is a short lead.

Children should not have been allowed to approach the dog without consent. So the parents aren't right to blame your friend. They should be teaching their children how to respect dogs.

At the same time, a well trained and socialised dog will not react to anything. My dogs often have children run up to them, (uncontrolled by parents), they have been hit by children (heavy handed more than aggression), they have had toddlers stick fingers in eyes, nose and in mouth, they have had babies tug on their hair or try to clamber on them. They do not react to any of that. No dog should!

Staffies can be reactive I am afraid.

Agree with many other posters that there is split blame here between the parents who shouldn’t have allowed their child to approach the dog, and the owners who didn’t have the dog under control.

But. You say in your OP, that the dog is an old staffie, so there is no excuse at all for the owners being clueless. The dog should have been walking to heel and under control around young children and it wasn’t. I’m afraid your friend needs to take responsibility.

Correct, a dog cannot bite a person even if on a lead. But...

Even the calmest of dogs can nip if they feel threatened.

So if this went to court, then although the dog bit the child, the court would ascertain that the dog was on a short lead, and the owner had the dog under control, and it was the act of the child "attacking" the dog that lead to the dog nipping. Had the child not approached and "attacked" the dog, then no such incident would have occurred.

(The child obviously did not attack the dog, but the actions of the child caused the dog to feel under attack)

The law does look at both sides, as otherwise the law would need changing to one that states ALL dogs must be muzzled and on a lead when out in public.

If the girl just ran past and the dog nipped her, that would be totally the dog/owners fault and unacceptable.
But the girl patted the dog's head.
Surely rule number 1 with children is you teach them not to touch strange dogs without asking?
Teach your children that animals might nip you if you suddenly grab or pat them - doesn't matter if it's a dog, cat, squirrel, duck.

The blame lies solely with the child and parents. All idiots.

Nobody is at fault here. Very young children don't know any better, and old dogs are prone to reminding young'uns that they've crossed the line. Everyone was doing what they were supposed to do.

As I already posted, you are correct that a dog cannot bite a child, but the law also looks at circumstance, and if a dog is on a short lead and under control, and was threatened by the child, then even the calmest dog will nip when threatened, which is exactly what happened.

If the law didn't take circumstance into consideration, the law would state that all dogs must be muzzled in public and on a lead at all times.

But despite being on the lead, the dog was not under the owner’s control. In the OP it says it was 1.5m ahead, not walking to heel.

Parents at fault, I would have been furious at them. Having said that, I would naturally keep my dog in check when passing anyone or other dogs. I once had a young child run to my dog and hug my dog at face level it was terrifying for me and I was shocked at furious at those parents allowing that to happen as if my dog had reacted, it would have been stated to be his fault.