MY baby bitten on the head by friends dog.

borderlinemeath

Rick Rod wrote: »

No he is right. End of. The matter should be discussed with the Gardai for their view on a baby attacking dog

And don't forget to sue now, because all that money will make the child feel so much better:rolleyes:

Is it any wonder that the Gardai take so long to respond to emergency calls if they're tied up with paperwork for a 'dog bite' that wasn't actually a bite, but a warning nip? It's as bad as the poster on the consumer forum that wanted to inform the gardai when he was overcharged in Tesco because they were 'stealing'.

The gardai should be involved if a dog attacks. And by attacks I mean a sustained attack where there was physical damage done. Both parties were in the wrong, the OP for assuming the dog was fine with toddlers and her friend for assuming the same. A lesson has been learned on both sides and the gardai do not need (nor want the waste of time) to be involved.

borderlinemeath

cathy01 wrote: »

Just an update.my poor angel was up during the night screaming.her dad went in ( :-) ) she was ok. My friend rang me and she didn't sleep a wink.she went to a vet and got the name and number if an animal behaviour person? My friend spoke to her and it seems she may have given the dog too much free rain in the house .the dog sleeps in the kitchen and eats from the table as in if the kids drop the food.my daughter was on the floor. I think maybe the dog though he was the boss thats My non dog behaviour version of what was said.

OP, I would consider using a different behaviourist if the one that came 'vet recommended' started talking about the dog 'knowing his place' and being 'the boss'. That's old school talk and is subscribing to pack behaviour theories. Can you check with your friend, is the 'behaviourist' a member of apdt.ie? What are their qualifications and when did they achieve them? There are a lot of differences in what was considered best practice 20 years ago and what is considered best practice these days. Having 20 years experience is not necessarily a good thing if the skills aren't updated to reflect new findings.

I think the plan is to retrain the family on how to train the dog . But they will keep an eye on his behaviour and he's been kept in his run for the next few days until the whole plan is put in place.no kids allowed just to be safe.
My friends words where she is grieving ,as if her dog has already died because the dog she has now is so different to the dog she thought she had.
Ill let you know how things go.

I think you're all still in shock, it's a very traumatic thing to go through for all involved.

Just a tiny little story.
We got our dog from a rescue centre.we fostered him first to make sure he fit in with us .we loved him from when we first seen him.
Years ago my daughter was about 8 she was playing with him ,she had him wearing a hat been pushed around in her dolls pram.our poor dog just sat there resolved to the fact that he is part of the family and we all play together.
He is an old dog now and as much as he wants to run around with my baby he just runs away and she tries to chase him.
He has his own space , and we leave him alone when he's not in the form.he sleeps in at night and doesn't like a dog bed just his Matt .
I wish that my friend can have as many happy years if love and fun with her dog as we have had with ours .
The motto a dog is for life is something that sticks in my head as our dog brought life and joy and fun and fleas and he is loved.
I'm glad I took all the advice and time to read them and not let them mammy in me say its time for the dog to go.
Sensible thing is as above train the family , teach the dog and observe very carefully. That's for them for me,I will just never take a chance with any dog ever.by the way it wasn't a pit bull or Staffie or Rottweiler .
Thanks all.

Rick Rod

borderlinemeath wrote: »

And don't forget to sue now, because all that money will make the child feel so much better:rolleyes:

Is it any wonder that the Gardai take so long to respond to emergency calls if they're tied up with paperwork for a 'dog bite' that wasn't actually a bite, but a warning nip? It's as bad as the poster on the consumer forum that wanted to inform the gardai when he was overcharged in Tesco because they were 'stealing'.

The gardai should be involved if a dog attacks. And by attacks I mean a sustained attack where there was physical damage done. Both parties were in the wrong, the OP for assuming the dog was fine with toddlers and her friend for assuming the same. A lesson has been learned on both sides and the gardai do not need (nor want the waste of time) to be involved.

If the child need physiatrist consultant visits who do you think should pay? She is already having nightmares

Lambofdave

Rick Rod wrote: »

Inform the Gardai immediately and make sure the dog is put down before it turns on another poor child. You may also be able to sue against the insurance company

Your not the type of person many friends would want if your so quick to sue

Lambofdave

The child was in the dogs territory why in earth did the op leave the child on the floor next to a dog? Nobody seems to take responsibility for their own actions but apportion blame on someone else.

DBB

borderlinemeath wrote: »

OP, I would consider using a different behaviourist if the one that came 'vet recommended' started talking about the dog 'knowing his place' and being 'the boss'. That's old school talk and is subscribing to pack behaviour theories. Can you check with your friend, is the 'behaviourist' a member of apdt.ie?

I too would be very concerned about this op: vets don't necesssarily realise that there have been some standards brought in by the behaviour industry to try to educate owners, and vets, of the minimum standards of education and experience required by someone calling themselves a behaviourist.
No good, qualified behaviourist would mention the dog viewing himself as higher than a baby in some pack. It has been shown that this does not happen, and anyone saying it does has not brought their own education up to anywhere near where it needs to be. As a result, the methods they use to address a non-existent cause of a problem can be pretty hit and miss.
Just as an aside, the APDT are a dog trainers' organisation, not a behaviourists' one. The behaviourists' association is the Assoc of Pet Behaviour Counsellors ;-)
OP, if you let us know whereabouts your friend lives, I'm sure someone here could point her to a genuinely qualified behaviourist who can help.


I also note that a couple of posters have suggested you allow your little girl meet this dog again to help quell her fears.
I would not advise this: this dog shouldn't be forced into proximity with your daughter, nor vice versa. He has already demonstrated that he may have a problem with toddlers.
By all means, carefully controlled interaction with other dogs known to be child-mad, but not this dog.

borderlinemeath

Rick Rod wrote: »

If the child need physiatrist consultant visits who do you think should pay? She is already having nightmares

As others have posted, you're likely to not have many friends if that's what you would consider to be the right course of action. The OP and her friend are dealing with this in a practical, mature manner, not in an all guns blazing, hot headed, compensation grabbing way as you would see fit.

Rick Rod

borderlinemeath wrote: »

As others have posted, you're likely to not have many friends if that's what you would consider to be the right course of action. The OP and her friend are dealing with this in a practical, mature manner, not in an all guns blazing, hot headed, compensation grabbing way as you would see fit.

So who should pay if the child requires medical care ? I would say the insurance company of the dog owner. What do you say?

deandean

Could somebody 'in the know' please put together a list of the warning signs that a dog might be about to get agressive / defensive?

I am well aware of the snarling teeth with drool, but there has been mention of some much more subtle signs like dog turning his back, etc? Thanks.

Nody

deandean wrote: »

Could somebody 'in the know' please put together a list of the warning signs that a dog might be about to get agressive / defensive?

I am well aware of the snarling teeth with drool, but there has been mention of some much more subtle signs like dog turning his back, etc? Thanks.

Cocolola wrote: »

Hi OP.

Sorry about what happened, glad your little one is ok though. As has been said before, this was just the dog's way of warning her to back off without wanting to cause any harm. I know you said your daughter didn't do anything to the dog but it may still have been showing signs of stress and anxiety that can be hard to read if you don't know what they are. This pic I found very helpful for my niece and her parents once she started interacting with our dogs at home.



I hope you both can get past this in time and that it doesn't have a lasting effect on how you see dogs.

Second page; there's also a set of children interaction with dog pictures that can be printed floating around (I'm sure someone can link them again).

DBB

deandean wrote: »

Could somebody 'in the know' please put together a list of the warning signs that a dog might be about to get agressive / defensive?

I am well aware of the snarling teeth with drool, but there has been mention of some much more subtle signs like dog turning his back, etc? Thanks.

There were a couple of posts earlier on in this thread which showed or linked to Dr. Sophia Yin's good graphics, which are just as salient for adults as they are for kids:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87380716&postcount=50

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87381023&postcount=54

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87381157&postcount=56

borderlinemeath

Rick Rod wrote: »

So who should pay if the child requires medical care ? I would say the insurance company of the dog owner. What do you say?

There's a big if here. Children are far more resiliant than we think. It's highly unlikely that because of a bruise on her head that she will need any medical care. Physical or mental. And as the OP stated they have a dog which the child is not afraid of. Why are you still trying to dream up an absolute worse case scenario to back up your argument? This situation does not warrant gardai intervention, nor insurance companies. I got far worse injuries playing as a child falling off peoples walls, out of trees, pushed in the classroom. Did my family sue? Course they didn't.

Nody

DBB wrote: »

There were a couple of posts earlier on in this thread which showed or linked to Dr. Sophia Yin's good graphics, which are just as salient for adults as they are for kids:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87380716&postcount=50

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87381023&postcount=54

Slacker; I beat you by a whole minute!

DBB

Nody wrote: »

Slacker; I beat you by a whole minute!

Slacker you say? Wasn't I off getting lots more nice pics for deandean to peruse? So there. Who's the slacker now, huh?
:-p

Rick Rod

borderlinemeath wrote: »

There's a big if here. Children are far more resiliant than we think. It's highly unlikely that because of a bruise on her head that she will need any medical care. Physical or mental. And as the OP stated they have a dog which the child is not afraid of. Why are you still trying to dream up an absolute worse case scenario to back up your argument? This situation does not warrant gardai intervention, nor insurance companies. I got far worse injuries playing as a child falling off peoples walls, out of trees, pushed in the classroom. Did my family sue? Course they didn't.

So who are you saying should pay? The nightmares are already starting...

Duckjob

mathepac wrote: »

That's a very different situation to that described in your original post so make your mind up - what actually happened?

No it isn't. I initially posted a brief 2 line summary of the incident. You filled in the blanks with your own imagination to construct a wonderful DailyMail-eque version of an incident you weren't there to witness, and made yourself look quite foolish in doing so. Now you realise that and are trying to back-peddle to save face and imply I my story changed.

Perhaps you'd like to point out one detail in my 2nd post that was in contradiction (note: additional detail is not a contradiction) with what I have earlier said.

I stand over my comments which were based on the content of your original post.

Just admit it, rather than asking for additional detail, you made up your own.

I totally disagree. The child was playing with the dog in his view as the notion of abusing an animal is not something a child could comprehend.

Nice strawman argument you're trying to construct there. Much as I was frustrated by seeing my pet hurt by the actions of the child, I never said it was the childs fault. I don't blame the child at all, he was just being a typically hyper kid. 100% fault lies at the foot of the parent who was watching their child and did nothing to control their actions or remove them from the situation.

If you were genuinely concerned for the safety of your dog and the safety of the child you could have put the leash on your dog and walked away. Shouting at the child with the dog in close proximity to you was likely to upset both the dog and the child, potentially making an unpleasant situation more volatile. A responsible owner / parent would know this and avoid the potential escalation.

I couldn't even get to my dog because the dog trying to run away and the kid
was all the time getting between me and my dog. But of course, you're imagining of how the incident played out is clearly much more accurate than somebody who was there to witness it.

There is never ever any justification for a dog to injure or traumatise a child. It’s the dog owner’s responsibility to prevent this by having their pet under effective control at all times, which means being able and willing to remove the dog from any situation where the child might be at risk.

As above, I would have been more than happy to remove my dog from the situation. And, at the risk of repeating myself, the dog was under control, the child out of control.

A really stupid attempt at an analogy and unless you are particularly child-like in both your behaviour and outlook, given a choice of adults in a park to punch in the head, I should be last on your list.

Instead of being smart, even if you maybe you could try to understand the point I was making. Leaving the issue of responsibility of owners or parents out of it, if a dog is being attacked/injured by a human, adult or child, do you think it reasonable/unreasonable of that dog to snap or bite back? Or to put it another way, do you think dogs it reasonable of a dog to exercise the same right of self-defence that humans do ?

Of course, either you preferred to read it as that I thought the kid deserved to get bitten or something equally ludicrous. I don't know, and frankly, don't care.

I know it’s not rocket science but the basic principles seem sufficiently complex to have escaped you completely.

You are the one that seems to be having trouble grasping basic principles - ie. the principle of mutual responsilbillty.

Once again, this is new / different information from that you supplied originally. I’m beginning to wonder is this a story you make up as you go along.

My post 1: "She was running away and avoiding him but finally he ended up on top of her and trod on her feet. She squealed and ran way. "
My post 2: "(as I said she didnt bite him, she squealed and ran away because he trod on her paw and injured her) ..."

You're really making an eejit of yourself now

As I said already you are solely responsible for you dog’s behaviour. You are also solely responsible for your dog’s safety and comfort. You failed in that respect by not removing your dog in a timely manner from a situation that was both painful, i.e. being trodden on, and probably stressful, i.e being threatened by an unfamiliar child with a stick. Having her on-leash would have facilitated you both in controlling and moving her away.
Yes you were ay fault as I’ve pointed out several times already.
You have no control over this and no responsibility. You are responsible for your behaviour and the safety, well-being, behaviour and control of your dog.
I have yet to meet a defenceless dog and I was brought up to believe that children are innocent and blameless - irritating, infuriating, remorseless and uncontrollable by times but not responsible for their own actions and incapable of knowing right from wrong. (unless of course the child in your story now suddenly morphs into 6’7” body-builder on steroids)
I must decline your invitation to go away, thanks all the same.

Only crazy imaginings have being in your fastastic re-imagining of an incident that you didn't witness. You might want to lay off the night-time coffee, nice glass of warm milk might be better for you, and save you making a gob****e of yourself.


I guessing you're not a dog person. You appear to attribute all responsilibity to pet owners to remove themselves and their pets
from the paths of aggressive children, and none on the childrens parents to educate their kids on how to treat animals. Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. I've no interest in trying to
change it because if I tried to change every stupid opinion some keyboard kid has on the internet I would get nothing done all day.


I'm both a parent and a pet owner, and I consider myself to have a dual responsibility - Firstly, to make sure my dog is under my control
and does not harrass children or other people, and secondly, I have a responsibility as a parent to ensure my child does not
harrass any dogs (Not that she would mean to, but she hadsnt yet developed the co-ardination or the sense to approach a dog correctly).

If you believe I’m trolling report me to the mods, else cease and desist ...[/QUOTE]

wexie

Rick Rod wrote: »

So who are you saying should pay? The nightmares are already starting...

Where do you get that information from pray tell?

All OP said that the child was up in the middle of the night. screaming. Kids wake up in the middle of the night all the time, mine sometimes start crying because they can't find their teddy.

Nothing in the post suggests that there were nightmares involving being savaged by dogs.

Not only do you seem to be somewhat vague in your knowledge on dogs you're not altogether up to date on kids it would seem.

Rick Rod

wexie wrote: »

Where do you get that information from pray tell?

All OP said that the child was up in the middle of the night. screaming. Kids wake up in the middle of the night all the time, mine sometimes start crying because they can't find their teddy.

Nothing in the post suggests that there were nightmares involving being savaged by dogs.

Not only do you seem to be somewhat vague in your knowledge on dogs you're not altogether up to date on kids it would seem.

If the child requires consultant care to deal with the trauma who do you think should pay? Could you answer please? I have already stated I believe the insurance company should. What do you think? What's your opinion on who should foot the bill if medical care is required ?

borderlinemeath

Rick Rod wrote: »

So who are you saying should pay? The nightmares are already starting...

One nightmare does not warrant a physological evaluation of the child. Nobody should pay anything. At this point your just flaming posters as you have no back up for your argument and the OP is working it out without any gardai/insurance/compensation imput. Time for you to go troll elsewhere methinks..

Rick Rod

borderlinemeath wrote: »

One nightmare does not warrant a physological evaluation of the child. Nobody should pay anything. At this point your just flaming posters as you have no back up for your argument and the OP is working it out without any gardai/insurance/compensation imput. Time for you to go troll elsewhere methinks..

Simple question for you - if medial care is required to help with the child's trauma who should pay? It's pretty obvious you are refusing to answer because you know you are in the wrong here.... Can you answer the question I have asked you numerous times please?

wexie

Rick Rod wrote: »

If the child requires consultant care to deal with the trauma who do you think should pay? Could you answer please? I have already stated I believe the insurance company should. What do you think? What's your opinion on who should foot the bill if medical care is required ?

IF medical care had been required then more likely than not the insurance company of the owner.

HOWEVER in this case medical care WASNT and WILL NOT be required so please stop making up hypothetical situations that might somehow prove you're not talking a load of hogwash.

You've been very conclusively proven to be wrong, in your knowledge of dog behaviour, best practices, law and some other things as well I believe.

If I were you I'd be quiet and listen to the people that actually have a clue. You might actually learn something.

Althought that would involve admitting that you're wrong which wouldn't appear to be one of your strenghts now would it?

Rick Rod

wexie wrote: »

IF medical care had been required then more likely than not the insurance company of the owner.

HOWEVER in this case medical care WASNT and WILL NOT be required so please stop making up hypothetical situations that might somehow prove you're not talking a load of hogwash.

You've been very conclusively proven to be wrong, in your knowledge of dog behaviour, best practices, law and some other things as well I believe.

If I were you I'd be quiet and listen to the people that actually have a clue. You might actually learn something.

Althought that would involve admitting that you're wrong which wouldn't appear to be one of your strenghts now would it?

Oh and you are qualified how to say that medical care will never be required here? Zero possibility ? Amazing !

wexie

Rick Rod wrote: »

Oh and you are qualified how to say that mediacal care will never be required here? Zero possibility ? Amazing !

as qualified as you to say that it will be based on the available facts.

You can keep dreaming up scenario's all you want.

You'll still be wrong

Rick Rod

cathy01 wrote: »

Just an update.my poor angel was up during the night screaming.her dad went in ( :-) ) she was ok. My friend rang me and she didn't sleep a wink.she went to a vet and got the name and number if an animal behaviour person? My friend spoke to her and it seems she may have given the dog too much free rain in the house .the dog sleeps in the kitchen and eats from the table as in if the kids drop the food.my daughter was on the floor. I think maybe the dog though he was the boss thats My non dog behaviour version of what was said.
I think the plan is to retrain the family on how to train the dog . But they will keep an eye on his behaviour and he's been kept in his run for the next few days until the whole plan is put in place.no kids allowed just to be safe.
My friends words where she is grieving ,as if her dog has already died because the dog she has now is so different to the dog she thought she had.
Ill let you know how things go.
Just a tiny little story.
We got our dog from a rescue centre.we fostered him first to make sure he fit in with us .we loved him from when we first seen him.
Years ago my daughter was about 8 she was playing with him ,she had him wearing a hat been pushed around in her dolls pram.our poor dog just sat there resolved to the fact that he is part of the family and we all play together.
He is an old dog now and as much as he wants to run around with my baby he just runs away and she tries to chase him.
He has his own space , and we leave him alone when he's not in the form.he sleeps in at night and doesn't like a dog bed just his Matt .
I wish that my friend can have as many happy years if love and fun with her dog as we have had with ours .
The motto a dog is for life is something that sticks in my head as our dog brought life and joy and fun and fleas and he is loved.
I'm glad I took all the advice and time to read them and not let them mammy in me say its time for the dog to go.
Sensible thing is as above train the family , teach the dog and observe very carefully. That's for them for me,I will just never take a chance with any dog ever.by the way it wasn't a pit bull or Staffie or Rottweiler .
Thanks all.

OP at the very least you nee to have a chat to your solicitor to see where you stand if your child needs medical care to deal with the trauma. The nightmares could be the start of it

Rick Rod

wexie wrote: »

as qualified as you to say that it will be based on the available facts.

You can keep dreaming up scenario's all you want.

You'll still be wrong

I have not made definitive statements. You have. See the difference?

borderlinemeath

Rick Rod wrote: »

Oh and you are qualified how to say that medical care will never be required here? Zero possibility ? Amazing !

Here's the thing. Usually when posters such as the OP have given such a detailed account of what happened, and the day after giving even more information. I would be fairly certain that if a doctors visit had been necessary, the OP would certainly have mentioned it. But she didn't because it wasn't necessary, it obviously didn't happen but yet you insist that the 'insurance' must pay.

Stop making up hypothetical situations to try and win an argument you lost on the first page of this thread.

Rick Rod

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Here's the thing. Usually when posters such as the OP have given such a detailed account of what happened, and the day after giving even more information. I would be fairly certain that if a doctors visit had been necessary, the OP would certainly have mentioned it. But she didn't because it wasn't necessary, it obviously didn't happen but yet you insist that the 'insurance' must pay.

Stop making up hypothetical situations to try and win an argument you lost on the first page of this thread.

The nightmare could be an indication of the trauma. The OP will have to fund care if required in your eyes. Well done !

stoeger

Rick Rod wrote: »

Inform the Gardai immediately and make sure the dog is put down before it turns on another poor child. You may also be able to sue against the insurance company

I see the claim merchants are at it again . Thank god you child wasn't hurt and you friend has offered to put the dog down it will be very hard for her but it has to be done last thing he needs is a claim on top of it . Hope your child is ok it happened to me when i was a kid . I love dog always have what ever you do don't freak out when ever you see a dog around you will only ad to what ever if any fear your child may have

wexie

Rick Rod wrote: »

The nightmare could be an indication of the trauma. The OP will have to fund care if required in your eyes. Well done !

Or it could be an indication of :

1) lost teddy
2) having to wee
3) a 'bad dream' not involving a dog
4) the fact that toddlers at a certain age start having dreams in general
5) a spider in the room
6) impending alien attack
7) an earthquake
8) serious depression over the escalating tension in the middle east
9) financial worries
10) waking up and wanting a cuddle

Will I go on?

Hypothetical situations are exactly that.

OP so far has proven to be very level headed and mature about this.

Wouldn't do you any harm to take an example in her.

borderlinemeath

Rick Rod wrote: »

The nightmare could be an indication of the trauma. The OP will have to fund care if required in your eyes. Well done !

Well done for what? Pointing out earlier that you only appear to be flaming on this thread? You have given the wrong 'advice' (it's not even that it's you ill informed opinion) since the first page of this thread. All you've done is tell the OP to claim compensation for a non existent injury and now you're trying to get her to sue for mental trauma? Get real, this isn't Judge Judy, it's two friends working out a situation that you are trying to work up to something far more.

Rick Rod

wexie wrote: »

Or it could be an indication of :

1) lost teddy
2) having to wee
3) a 'bad dream' not involving a dog
4) the fact that toddlers at a certain age start having dreams in general
5) a spider in the room
6) impending alien attack
7) an earthquake
8) serious depression over the escalating tension in the middle east
9) financial worries
10) waking up and wanting a cuddle

Will I go on?

Hypothetical situations are exactly that.

OP so far has proven to be very level headed and mature about this.

Wouldn't do you any harm to take an example in her.

Funny why the OP would mention it them on this thread then? Lost teddy ? Jesus wept !

Rick Rod

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Well done for what? Pointing out earlier that you only appear to be flaming on this thread? You have given the wrong 'advice' (it's not even that it's you ill informed opinion) since the first page of this thread. All you've done is tell the OP to claim compensation for a non existent injury and now you're trying to get her to sue for mental trauma? Get real, this isn't Judge Judy, it's two friends working out a situation that you are trying to work up to something far more.

So if care if needed to deal with the trauma you thing the OP should pay?

wexie

borderlinemeath

Rick Rod wrote: »

So if care if needed to deal with the trauma you thing the OP should pay?

Yes, she should. But it won't happen because the situation didn't warrant it. There is no 'trauma'. One bad dream does not indicate 'trauma'. Except in your little world of compensation culture.

DBB

Okay all,
Rick rod, borderlinemeath has answered your question a number of posts back, when she said that no money should change hands. Edited to add: and again in the above post.
You may not agree, that's fine. But she did answer your question.

To all: this back and forth nitpicking between everyone is not only getting tiresome, it's dragging the thread off topic.
So, can I ask that if ye want to continue the discussion, do so by pm, or start a new thread on it. If ye choose either option, keep it civil between ye.
But no more posting about who should pay what, as it just doesn't apply here until or unless the op posts that they're pursuing costs.
Let's get back on topic now.
Do not reply to this post on thread.
Thanks,
DBB

brianl1986

If care is ultimately needed I think the dog should have to pay - or if the dog doesn't have the money he should have to pay in kind by offering guard dog or butler services

ShaneSheep555

DBB wrote: »

Why would you involve the Gardai? No law was broken. This is a civil issue.
If the op were to sue, they would need to demonstrate loss, injury or damage caused by negligence. Whilst this incident was very unpleasant, I think the op would have quite the job to demonstrate any of this.
The hysteria here is... Jaw dropping. Kids have accidents, they crash into walls on their bikes, they push each other over, they fall over footpaths, so do you advocate the parents sue the owner of the wall? The kid who pushed? The council? Of course not.
This was an accident. The damage done was, thankfully, small. If the dog had previous form, then the owner would be negligent. But a first-off incident which resulted in a bruise? I don't fancy their chances.

I agree 100%. What has the Gardai got to do with this incident? You would have to get a Court Order to allow the dog to go asleep.
I find this topic incredibly ridiculous! Dog's are incredible creature's, As it was said above me - ''Kids have accidents, they crash into walls on their bikes.'' I think this proves that a child would be held responsible for the dogs actions/behavior. I find this appalling that the dog is held responsible for this incident. The dog isn't going to miraculously acknowledge what a child is.

Rick Rod

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

I agree 100%. What has the Gardai got to do with this incident? You would have to get a Court Order to allow the dog to go asleep.
I find this topic incredibly ridiculous! Dog's are incredible creature's, As it was said above me - ''Kids have accidents, they crash into walls on their bikes.'' I think this proves that a child would be held responsible for the dogs actions/behavior. I find this appalling that the dog is held responsible for this incident. The dog isn't going to miraculously acknowledge what a child is.

The dog attacked therefore it is responsible. I don't see how else you can paint it

Sofiztikated

Rick Rod wrote: »

The dog attacked therefore it is responsible. I don't see how else you can paint it

The way I read it was:

Child was petting dog.
Adult looked away.
Adult heard noise.
Looked back.

Who knows what the child did in that absence of supervision.

ShaneSheep555

Rick Rod wrote: »

The dog attacked therefore it is responsible. I don't see how else you can paint it

And do you have 100% confirmation that the dog was responsible?

Where you there?

A kid is a kid - If a dog is scared or threatened and ( naturally a child isn't going to no not to threaten the dog.)

Again, When a dog is threatened - Of course it's going to attack.

Tea Tree

interesting and useful set of pictures I just came across and good because it's a real dog rather than a cartoon.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=625556257486866&set=a.329436093765552.72228.329379537104541&type=1&theater

borderlinemeath

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

And do you have 100% confirmation that the dog was responsible?

Where you there?

A kid is a kid - If a dog is scared or threatened and ( naturally a child isn't going to no not to threaten the dog.)

Again, When a dog is threatened - Of course it's going to attack.

While your intentions are correct the dog didn't 'attack' in the conventional sense. An attack would imply that there was severe damage done. The dog warned, it gave a warning nip. It certainly didn't attack

Rick Rod

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

And do you have 100% confirmation that the dog was responsible?

Where you there?

A kid is a kid - If a dog is scared or threatened and ( naturally a child isn't going to no not to threaten the dog.)

Again, When a dog is threatened - Of course it's going to attack.

The injuries are 100% due to the dog therefore dog was responsible. Was I there you ask ? Why do you think I could have been ? Do you think I could have been there?

Frank Black

<snip>

If you post like that in this forum again, you will be infracted and banned.
Do not reply to this post.

ShaneSheep555

Rick Rod wrote: »

The injuries are 100% due to the dog therefore dog was responsible. Was I there you ask ? Why do you think I cool have been ? Do you think I could have been there?

I presume not. Again it was not 100% true that the dog was responsible.
Did you ever think outside the box? Maybe the child tugged at the dog's ear or angered the dog?

DBB

Leaving aside this current thread scenario for a moment...
How can anyone hold a creature responsible, when that creature has no concept of what responsibility is? That goes for e.g. a baby, an adult with learning difficulties, a dog, or a goldfish.
If there is responsibility, it is the owner's. Most certainly not the dog's. Nor the child's, goldfish's etc.
Honestly, if you're going to philosophise, please try to make it a rational debate!

ShaneSheep555

DBB wrote: »

Leaving aside this current thread scenario for a moment...
How can anyone hold a creature responsible, when that creature has no concept of what responsibility is? That goes for e.g. a baby, an adult with learning difficulties, a dog, or a goldfish.
If there is responsibility, it is the owner's. Most certainly not the dog's. Nor the child's, goldfish's etc.
Honestly, if you're going to philosophise, please try to make it a rational debate!

100% Agree DBB!

Rick Rod

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

I presume not. Again it was not 100% true that the dog was responsible.
Did you ever think outside the box? Maybe the child tugged at the dog's ear or angered the dog?

And do you ever think inside the box? Perhaps the dog may kill the next child it attacks.

sillysmiles

Rick Rod wrote: »

And do you ever think inside the box? Perhaps the dog may kill the next child it attacks.

Or perhaps the dog has a toothache?

Perhaps deciding the likelihood of future incidents should be done by

a) people who know the dog ie the owner combined with advice and assistance from
b) the vet and
c) a behaviorist

sillysmiles

The other thing I don't get about the people advocating suing and damages and compensation etc - did you ignore that these two people (the child's mother and the dog's owner) are friends?

They have both accepted equal culpability. They both believe the were equally to blame (my reading of that the op has written), so why would you sue your friend when you think that you are partially responsible?