My neighbours dig bit my sons arm

Ayla

.erre.3e3r wrote: »

There was a very similar thread to this a few months / weeks back
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78681302

No, there are a lot of differences in these two cases one of which being that: in the first case, the dog was running loose in a garden during a child's party, whereas in the second case, the dog was being walked down the sidewalk by its owner & the child ran up to it. Big difference in responsibility & culpability.

Jame Gumb

The dog's owner should have had it muzzled as he or she must be aware that it's vicious.

The child's parents should teach him not to approach strange dogs and bring him to the doctor to get the wound examined.

There's blame on both sides in my view.

Ayla

.erre.3e3r wrote: »

All controlled dogs are on the list for a reason. It's absolutely farsicle to agree with charging young men more for insurance, based on the fact that they are more dangerous behind the wheel, yet dismiss the claim that a pitbull is lethal. The mind boggles sometimes.

Don't go skewing the facts - we do not know the breed of dog in this case, so constantly brining up the restricted breeds list (not controlled dog list - which does not exist) does not help this discussion

.erre.3e3r

Jame Gumb wrote: »

The dog's owner should have had it muzzled as he or she must be aware that it's vicious.

The child's parents should teach him not to approach strange dogs and bring him to the doctor to get the wound examined.

There's blame on both sides in my view.

Dog should be destroyed (ie, euthanised).

/

ppink

.erre.3e3r wrote: »

All controlled dogs are on the list for a reason. It's absolutely farsicle to agree with charging young men more for insurance, based on the fact that they are more dangerous behind the wheel, yet dismiss the claim that a pitbull is lethal. The mind boggles sometimes.

where did OP say it was a restricted dog?

Ayla

Jame Gumb wrote: »

The dog's owner should have had it muzzled as he or she must be aware that it's vicious.

The child's parents should teach him not to approach strange dogs and bring him to the doctor to get the wound examined.

There's blame on both sides in my view.

And now we have all those who join in the conversation without reading the thread...

Ayla

ppink wrote: »

where did OP say it was a restricted dog?

they didn't. we don't know the breed.

star-pants

Guys I'd ask that we post on the facts only.
As far as I can see we are still unsure of the breed of the dog, along with the age of the child involved.

Also it's the 'Restriction of Certain Dogs' if people are going to quote it.

Do not reply to this post and do not post in this thread if you aren't responding to the facts in a useful manner.

tbh

ppink wrote: »

well that is a point, I was talking dog initially as you do have an ability to communicate with a child a little better perhaps?

dogs don't think.

Graces7

Surely the fact that gives real concern is that the owner here accepted no responsibility so presumably will take no care that this cannot happen again? ( apologies if I have missed something here.)

Whatever the rights and wrongs, wherever we as individuals allocate the blame, for safety there needs to be some measures taken?

jaydoxx

Graces7 wrote: »

Surely the fact that gives real concern is that the owner here accepted no responsibility so presumably will take no care that this cannot happen again? ( apologies if I have missed something here.)

Whatever the rights and wrongs, wherever we as individuals allocate the blame, for safety there needs to be some measures taken?

Absolutely! Parent's need the cop on to be aware of any dangers facing their children and to educate themselves and their children as to how to act in a safe responsible manner.

And of course anyone who is going to own a pet(I know they are domesticated, but they are still animals i.e with animalistic instincts and behaviour.) should do the same to best prevent these situations as reasonably as possible.

At the end of the day, even in a perfect world, sh!t happens. We can't ensure the safety of all parties but we can avoid such situations most of the time with a bit of common sense and mutual respect for all living beings in our enviroments.

closeline

I'm sorry but you can't be attaching blame to anyone else. You said your kid is fine so leave it be instead of getting your neighbours in trouble.

Cherry Blossom

tbh wrote: »

Ok - if your 3-year-old nephew saw a really cool looking dog, and in his excitement forgot the "rule", ran up to the dog and got bitten, would you be thinking "well he knew the rules and he broke them, so it's his own fault".?
No, of course you wouldn't, because he's a three year old child. I do broadly agree with the point you're making, but I would just point out that in my view, neither the dog nor the child have any culpability here. The owner should have brought the dog to heel when s/he saw the child approaching, as much for the dogs protection as the childs.

He hasn't forgotten the rules yet, and tbh (no pun intended ) the routine is pretty much automatic now, he has gone through it so many times. 3 year old kids don't wander around unsupervised in any case, and I have already posted earlier in the thread I would consider myself fully responsible if this situation was to arise. Now, if my nephew was 13 years old and not 3 and approached a strange dog then yes, given that it has been drummed into him, there is no doubt that he should know better and should assume some responsibility for his own actions.

tbh wrote: »

The owner should have brought the dog to heel when s/he saw the child approaching, as much for the dogs protection as the childs.

The OP has clearly stated in their first post that the dog was on a lead, whether or not the dog was brought to heel is speculation, the OP was not there himself when this happened so s/he may not be able to answer this question.

tbh wrote: »

However I do think the owner should be spoken to. Yes it's not exactly fair, but at the end of the day, the rights of the public always exceed the "rights" of the dog to be walked or unleashed or whatever - that's just the way it is.

I stated in my first post on this thread that the incident should be reported, which it was.

Soups123 wrote: »

The dog was put in the situation by its owner, they should have controlled the situation, you think it's okay for a trained dog to not do as its told because of the situation it was put in yet you think the CHILD should always act as they are taught? U mustn't have children.

The owner should be taught what control of there dog is, it's not simply about being on a lead.

The dog should be trained, another Situation like this and an unreasonable parent unlike the OP will see it put down.

The parent should continue to teach the child, although I expect they've learned the hard way

Well thanks for this summary of what I have already said on this thread, perhaps you should read all of it. :rolleyes:

tbh

I'm an idiot. I blame roll eyes. Sry.

Soups123

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

He hasn't forgotten the rules yet, and tbh (no pun intended ) the routine is pretty much automatic now, he has gone through it so many times. 3 year old kids don't wander around unsupervised in any case, and I have already posted earlier in the thread I would consider myself fully responsible if this situation was to arise. Now, if my nephew was 13 years old and not 3 and approached a strange dog then yes, given that it has been drummed into him, there is no doubt that he should know better and should assume some responsibility for his own actions.



The OP has clearly stated in their first post that the dog was on a lead, whether or not the dog was brought to heel is speculation, the OP was not there himself when this happened so s/he may not be able to answer this question.



I stated in my first post on this thread that the incident should be reported, which it was.



Well thanks for this summary of what I have already said on this thread, perhaps you should read all of it. :rolleyes:

I have and my point differs to urs on who put the dog in the situation.
Maybe you should read again