Friend's dog bit a child, whose fault?

If the dog owner kept the dog away from people, how was it able to bite the child?

Maybe the parents did teach the child not to approach dogs. Maybe they didn't. Irrelevant.

Dog owners shouldn't allow their dogs to bite humans in public spaces. Full stop.

Pull the dog closer. Move the dog away. If your dog is going to bite a child that pats its head, make sure your dog can't do that.

If the owner had "kept it on a lead and away from people" then a small child wouldn't have been bitten 🙄

It’s the dog owner’s fault, always.

Thank goodness it was a nip and not a bite!

Most old dogs have cataracts which impair their vision so this is most likely what caused the nip. To protect the dog I wouldn't allow any stranger to stroke the dog after this incident.

I've always been in two minds about children stroking my dogs. If they're calm and sensible I've shown them how to extend their hand with the palm facing upwards as an inoffensive greeting. If the child has been overly excited I've said "no, sorry" and continued walking.

I hope the dog owner has, their dog is not safe around children. No dog should be able to reach a small child particularly in a park where children may be running around excited and not on the look out for a dog that might bite. Keep dogs under control, children come before dogs.

The parents of the child are absolutely at fault.

The dog owner has zero responsibility here in this case; the parents are completely accountable imo. Children should never approach dogs!

A couple of weeks ago I had to physically grab a small child that was hurtling towards my friend's dog. The dog was on a short lead with no slack as she'd pulled her in on the opposite side. The dog doesn't like children, and my friend is very proactive in managing that. But this child was trying to run around the other side to get to the dog.

Meanwhile the adults with the child (who we'd called out to) were just ambling along chatting amongst themselves, completely unaware of what the child was doing or how far ahead they were.

My friend's dog hasn't bitten a child, she's proactive because she wants to avoid her dog being stressed.

But if her dog, which was completely under control, had snapped at that child (who had no business whatsoever being so close) she'd have been at fault?

They were passing each other on a path, the child didn't run up to the dog, the dog owner could easily have kept the dog away from the child and they should have.

Bit of both.

I have a four year old and when passing dogs I do make sure she’s near me - not because she’d ever touch a dog, she doesn’t like them, but because I don’t know what a strange dog is going to do. But I would appreciate it if dog owners had the same curtesy to bring their dogs nearer - if it’s a path and the dog is 1.5m away on a lead, politeness would be to bring it nearer I think. I know you’ve said the path wasn’t narrow but you have said you were all “quite close”.

this

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.

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

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

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.

The child did. Read the OP.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

And dogs should never bite children!

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.

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