Friend's dog bit a child, whose fault?

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.

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.

Thankfully the law disagrees with you.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

Exactly this. I’d say it’s 50:50.

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'....

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.

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'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.

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.

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.