dog attack

N

nikkianddave

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 July 2017
Messages
72
Visit site
Hello, just looking for some advice please for a friend

her dog has bitten a delivery man, quite badly on his arm and you could actually see his bone

the dog is an Italian mastiff.

We know the law has changed on dangerous dogs on your own private property which is why we are asking for advice

the has signs everywhere saying do not enter, the delivery man (which we know are protected even more so entering private property) entered the property and the dog attacked him

the owner took the man to hospital, and called his workplace numerous times to check on him

she has now put preventative measures in place, i.e the dog is muzzled when outside, even in her private property and she has ordered kennels for him

the police came out to see her and took a statement, and as far as she was lead to believe it had been recorded and no further action was being taken

today she has received a letter from the court, being charged with "owner/person in charge of dog dangerously out of control causing injury"

it is clear that the person the dog attached is pressing charges, or the police if it is out of his control, which is all completely acceptable giving the dog did attack him

We would just like some advise on what may happen in court? could she be fined, or worse? could the dog be seized or would this have been done already if that was going to happen?

the owner is going to the solicitor today to get some legal advice

Please no nasty comments, the dog is a much loved family dog and hasn't bitten anyone before, but he is a protection dog and obviously this is heartbreaking for his owner
 
I think your friend is right in getting legal advise. The court could order that the dog is kept under control or I'm afraid that,the dog is destroyed.
I don't think the fact that there were warning signs is any excuse.
You could also find that they may make your friend pay damages.ie loss of earnings etc. Could be tricky I'm afraid.

.
 
I think she should be seen to do everything in her power meantime to try to ensure this doesn't happen again - you mentioned muzzling the dog when outside and getting a kennel made to keep the dog in properly. The court would hopefully see that you've gone to every effort to contain the dog to stop it happening again. I also dont think signs help her case hugely. Has the dog got a history of ever doing anything like this before? If so, it'll obviously work against it massively. I guess worst case is the owner is fined and the dog is destroyed...
 
Your friend need to set up the house so the dog and delivery men and others going to the door cannot come into contact with it .
This does sound like it was a nip so tbh if I where your friend I would be getting the dog PTS now while I was in control of the situation .
Of course she needs good legal advice but really you have no defence for something like that .
Awful thing for everyone .
 
Whilst this won't be the most popular view perhaps, the dog needs to be destroyed and your friend, nikkianddave needs to face the full force of the Law. Seek legal advice by all means, but accepting full responsibility for a dangerous dog, no matter how contrite the owner now is, is the responsibility of the owner of the dog.

The case should also be given as wide a public airing as possible with all those who keep any breed of dogs which they are unable to control, facing up to the reality that had the injured person been a foreign national who couldn't read english, or a small child or a person with learning or comprehension difficulties, the result could have been far worse.

It would seem from the attempts already in place that your friend was well aware of the liability which they have under their care and from here, not one ounce of sympathy for the owner.

Not a nasty comment OP just simple facts.

Alec.
 
A fine and at best a control order and at worst a destruction order.

I have huge issues with how and why 'protection dogs' (that will be a massive red flag legally BTW) are being sold to members of the public in an unregulated fashion and in some cases without either dog or handler receiving proper training.
Guard dogs and their handlers must be licensed by law and the animals are never allowed to be left unattended on (a fully secured) property.

Sorry for everyone involved.
 
I agree with all comments, if it was mine it would have been PTS too, but it hasn't been and she's hoping for best case scenario although it is more than likely he will be PTS. He wasn't sold as a protection dog, she has had him from a pup and this is what he has grown into.
It is totally out of character, the signs are there to deter people from entering, the dog hasn't ever bitten before but then on the other hand he hasn't ever had the chance to before.
Completely agree with everyone's opinions, but she is just looking for advice on what may happen next and not opinions on the situation

tia
 
Has this dog had any form of training ie any certificates such as the KC Good Citizen awards, any evidence like this would be I imagine very useful to show to a court rather than the words of the owner Or perhaps a report by a trainer or behaviourist as to the good character of this dog, this would then point to the owner as being a responsible person and the new measures put in place to show how this could never happen again.
 
Sorry, totally with Alec. One of my children suffered life changing injuries after an attack by a dog so therefore I am highly biased. Your friend's dog might not have been sold as a 'protection dog' to them but any responsible expectant owner would research the characteristics of the breed they were purchasing.
 
I have to say that the dog should never have been in a position where it came into contact with the delivery person. We have two (none dangerous) Rottweilers, heavy and loud, one of them appears to have decided that protecting her people is her job, they cannot access people coming to our front door, the yard and the back door are behind a locked gate, with a dog and people, proof fence
 
gunnergundog said:
Trevor Cooper is your man for advice http://www.doglaw.co.uk/
Click to expand...

When I next read that someone has been charged with Drink Driving, then should I perhaps suggest that they seek, or dare I say recommend and as you seem to do, a practise who specialise in lessening their responsibility? Just as we accept that the person who drives a car whilst unfit to do so through alcohol should face their responsibilities, so those who keep a dog, and despite the claim that they'e taken the steps that they believed would protect others, fail abysmally, then those persons are no less complicit.

"I didn't know that the gun was loaded" is no defence. The person who puts the lives and well being of others at risk because they keep a breed or type of dog with a known propensity for aggression, has no greater a degree of defence than the person who gets behind the wheel of a car whilst unfit through alcohol.

Alec.
 
Same as YorksG....dogs should never be put in this position. Yet we have another poster on another thread expressing concern about a potential accident waiting to happen with a dog that's a known biter according to the owner, and they are being told not to worry about it as nothing has happened yet.

Alec in fairness lots of lawyers specialise in lots of types of cases, that's why we have family lawyers, divorce lawyers, Mr Loophole types and yes, lawyers who are good at mitigating in DUI cases. That's their job, it's no different from asking for or suggesting a recommendation for a plumber. The Op's mate probably doesn't want to go to court unrepresented.
 
How sad for both delivery guy and dog.

Really not of the opinion that this kind of animal is a suitable pet. But given that this one has been treated as a pet sad for the owners too.

What on earth did they think delivery people were going to do though? Just not deliver and return parcels to sender?!? Did they have a mail box set up that could be accessed from outside the property? Locked gates with intercom? Hypothetical questions but would imagine that if this person wishes to make things safer with this/any future dog they'll need to do this... something that size could injure someone just by leaping at it muzzled tbh.

But if the dog is going to be shut in a small pen (I'm assuming that is what is meant by kennels in this instance) for much of the time (why would it not be shut in the house with more space to roam & family company?) then I'm afraid there gets to be a quality of life issue fairly quickly. I mean what would the owner be keeping it alive for?

Having known a dog that spent a few weeks in police kennels if the worst was looking likely I'd definitely be asking the solicitor representing to ask to have owner's own vet pts at home (or perhaps owner take to vet given how dog feels about strangers visiting!) immediately.

Might be worth getting owner to have a chat to either their dog's own breeder or a breed-specific rescue (google finds some) for advice from someone who understands the breed...
 
Alec Swan said:
When I next read that someone has been charged with Drink Driving, then should I perhaps suggest that they seek, or dare I say recommend and as you seem to do, a practise who specialise in lessening their responsibility? Just as we accept that the person who drives a car whilst unfit to do so through alcohol should face their responsibilities, so those who keep a dog, and despite the claim that they'e taken the steps that they believed would protect others, fail abysmally, then those persons are no less complicit.

"I didn't know that the gun was loaded" is no defence. The person who puts the lives and well being of others at risk because they keep a breed or type of dog with a known propensity for aggression, has no greater a degree of defence than the person who gets behind the wheel of a car whilst unfit through alcohol.

Alec.
Click to expand...

Alec....whether you like it or not everyone is entitled to legal representation. Some areas of the law are so niche that they attract very few specialists; it is such individuals, rather than the general practitioner, who are best placed to advise as to what is likely to happen in court which is the information that the OP requested.

You also have no idea whatsoever as to my views on the matter as I have not presented them; you are merely conjecturing.
 
I can see that the owner is going to need legal representation. Even if they do the right thing and have the dog PTS immediately they probably still need to fight being sued for a lot of money, if the bone was showing it could well be a life changing injury and delivery drivers don't tend to be rich to start with. Or does your house insurance cover you for that sort of thing?
When we insure our dogs they always ask if they are showing any aggressive tendencies, seeing as they are 8 weeks old it is a pretty clear cut no. On the basis that you should inform your insurer if anything changes presumably the first time the dog went for someone (which it must have done to make the woman try to fence it off and put signs up) they should have been informed. I doubt they would then have continued to offer cover. As they were not - again presumably - told the dog was now dangerous - would that negate your cover?
 
No pet insurer would cover a known biter/a dog used for security work or trained to bite on command.
Just out of intetest, I've read the small print of some policies and if a dog bites a family member or someone in a party you are travelling with/known to you, it can also be rendered void.
 
gunnergundog said:
…….. You also have no idea whatsoever as to my views on the matter as I have not presented them; you are merely conjecturing.
Click to expand...

So what are your views? Do you believe that those who keep a dangerous dog and one which occasions grievous bodily harm upon an innocent victim have any defence, or would you suggest that just as the person who's found to be drunk whilst driving, that they're entitled to face the full force of the Law, regardless of mitigation?

Having read your previous post, I took your thoughts at what most would consider to be face value, not conjecture.

Alec.
 
Considering those breeds of dog which for generations have been bred and kept for their guarding abilities, and/or their leanings towards violence, dogs which are all so often beyond the capabilities of the average pet home, I do wonder if the Dangerous Dog's Act shouldn't be expanded and to include those breeds which are now being imported, often to cross-breed and which are all so often little more than time-bombs. I'm tempted to think that as there's little use for them, beyond pet ownership, there should either be a clear cut ban or, as in the case of exotic animals, the owners should be individually licensed and without clear evidence that the owner has experience of such dogs, and the facilities to contain them, a licence should be refused. We can no longer keep lions in our back garden without authority, so we seem to be approaching the need for ever more legislation.

Whilst I'm firmly of the belief that the inexperienced take on these rather exotic creatures for reasons beyond the comprehension of most, the blanket ban on ALL dogs with a tendency through their lineage towards aggression, the risk is that swept up in to the heap will be GSDs, Rottweilers and the Doberman. These three breeds specifically will have the odd dog which is a throwback, but to lump them all in to the same demonised group would be wrong, clearly.

'Education' is pointless because those who see the cute bundle of appealing fluff at 8 weeks fail to understand that without considerable care and attention to detail, they will end up with a dangerous liability.

The DG has a friend who's a health professional and she's animal and pet mad. She acquired 3 lambs and one Sunday morning we had an urgent 'phone call asking for help as 2 of them were fly-struck. I went over and they were in a rather poor state. I treated them, cleaned them up and applied cooling and antibiotic treatments. We looked around the garden and there were sheds and cages everywhere, chickens, pheasants, an aviary full of small birds, guinea-pigs, rabbits and ferrets (separated). When we'd done the lady asked me if I'd like to see her dog. It was a 9 month old crossbred Mastiff of some sort. I enquired and she did tell me but I've forgotten its precise parentage but she mentioned Neapolitan I think, though they were of imported origin. Thankfully between this pup and I there was a fairly stout picket fence. The pup walked out, I ignored him and he launched himself at the fence which thankfully contained him. The pup had only one ambition, I predicted that in time someone would be badly injured and she seemed shocked. I understand that she'd paid £850 for the pup at 8 weeks. Quite what's become of him I dread to think.

It's with regret, but I truly believe that clear and unequivocal legislation is the only answer and hopefully, those who import these breeds will have entry stopped at the points of entry.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
Considering those breeds of dog which for generations have been bred and kept for their guarding abilities, and/or their leanings towards violence, dogs which are all so often beyond the capabilities of the average pet home, I do wonder if the Dangerous Dog's Act shouldn't be expanded and to include those breeds which are now being imported, often to cross-breed and which are all so often little more than time-bombs. I'm tempted to think that as there's little use for them, beyond pet ownership, there should either be a clear cut ban or, as in the case of exotic animals, the owners should be individually licensed and without clear evidence that the owner has experience of such dogs, and the facilities to contain them, a licence should be refused. We can no longer keep lions in our back garden without authority, so we seem to be approaching the need for ever more legislation.

Whilst I'm firmly of the belief that the inexperienced take on these rather exotic creatures for reasons beyond the comprehension of most, the blanket ban on ALL dogs with a tendency through their lineage towards aggression, the risk is that swept up in to the heap will be GSDs, Rottweilers and the Doberman. These three breeds specifically will have the odd dog which is a throwback, but to lump them all in to the same demonised group would be wrong, clearly.

'Education' is pointless because those who see the cute bundle of appealing fluff at 8 weeks fail to understand that without considerable care and attention to detail, they will end up with a dangerous liability.

The DG has a friend who's a health professional and she's animal and pet mad. She acquired 3 lambs and one Sunday morning we had an urgent 'phone call asking for help as 2 of them were fly-struck. I went over and they were in a rather poor state. I treated them, cleaned them up and applied cooling and antibiotic treatments. We looked around the garden and there were sheds and cages everywhere, chickens, pheasants, an aviary full of small birds, guinea-pigs, rabbits and ferrets (separated). When we'd done the lady asked me if I'd like to see her dog. It was a 9 month old crossbred Mastiff of some sort. I enquired and she did tell me but I've forgotten its precise parentage but she mentioned Neapolitan I think, though they were of imported origin. Thankfully between this pup and I there was a fairly stout picket fence. The pup walked out, I ignored him and he launched himself at the fence which thankfully contained him. The pup had only one ambition, I predicted that in time someone would be badly injured and she seemed shocked. I understand that she'd paid £850 for the pup at 8 weeks. Quite what's become of him I dread to think.

It's with regret, but I truly believe that clear and unequivocal legislation is the only answer and hopefully, those who import these breeds will have entry stopped at the points of entry.

Alec.
Click to expand...

The DDA is a farce, it hasnt prevented any dog attacks and many notable bodies have come out publicly and said its not fit for purpose.

Any dog in the wrong hands is a menace be that a JR or a Bull Mastiff, the only difference is the extent of the wound given the difference in size between the 2 breeds and the bite force.

Deed not breed is the slogan of the anti DDA law and its true, the trouble with this law is it addresses the wrong end of the lead.

We have seen how a lovable breed like the Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been badly used by louts and is not a family dog anymore according to the press who have jumped on anything when the SBT has been mentioned.

The dog you mentioned Alex most probably would have been a lovely dog in the right hands and in fact I know a couple and they are soft as butter, this lady who owned this dog doesnt seem like a good owner to me either but you cant blame the dog for that.



.
 
I agree with Alec here, a dog like the Italian Mastiff has been bred to be a guard dog, one generation of cuddles is not going to fix that. Labradors carry sticks, terriers dig holes, greyhounds run after moving things. Dogs that are bred to be intimidating/dangerous are going to carry on being just that. A labrador may bite you but it doesn't have the jaw strength or the bite mentality to result in you losing a limb.
 
Thought dangerous/beware of dog signs were an admission of guilt because the owner knows the dog is likely to attack? She needs a double gate entrance, full height, locks and codes if need be so no-one can access and a drop box for parcels.
 
Clodagh said:
I agree with Alec here, a dog like the Italian Mastiff has been bred to be a guard dog, one generation of cuddles is not going to fix that. Labradors carry sticks, terriers dig holes, greyhounds run after moving things. Dogs that are bred to be intimidating/dangerous are going to carry on being just that. A labrador may bite you but it doesn't have the jaw strength or the bite mentality to result in you losing a limb.
Click to expand...

I agree that Labs carry sticks, they also have jaws that are strong enough to pierce full tins of dog food - I know because I've seen them do it! They have also thought that they should guard their family.
We have Rottweilers now and tbh they are just as soft as any of the many Labs that we used to have but they look intimidating when they are standing behind our locked gate, barking. That doesn't mean that they would attack any-one who they thought was an intruder but I can't absolutely guarantee that they wouldn't, which is why they are behind the locked gate unless they are on their leads. They are extremely well-socialised and love meeting new people when they are out and about but it isn't every-one who wants to meet a loose Rottweiler when they are walking, with or without a dog.

I am afraid that I am of the opinion that there are dangerous owners, rather than dangerous dogs. It is downright irresponsible to keep a dog, of any breed, which can attack a visitor to the home, a bite from a JRT can be quite nasty. If the owner in the OP can make modifications to how they keep the dog now, they could have done that before. Although I wouldn't want to have a dog constantly muzzled. Surely it is possible to fence the dog away from the front door access.
 
Pearlsasinger said:
I agree that Labs carry sticks, they also have jaws that are strong enough to pierce full tins of dog food - I know because I've seen them do it! They have also thought that they should guard their family..
Click to expand...

But only a deranged lab would want to hold on and rag a person, using the attack biting mentality of a 'bull' type breed. I don't think dobes and rotties have been bred to the hang on and shake type bite? I think that is what makes mastiffs, American bulldogs, pit bulls and even SBTs more dangerous. I entirely agree that many of them are well socialised and lovely dogs but if any dog is going to bite you, it would be preferable not to be a type like that.
 
Clodagh said:
But only a deranged lab would want to hold on and rag a person, using the attack biting mentality of a 'bull' type breed. I don't think dobes and rotties have been bred to the hang on and shake type bite? I think that is what makes mastiffs, American bulldogs, pit bulls and even SBTs more dangerous. I entirely agree that many of them are well socialised and lovely dogs but if any dog is going to bite you, it would be preferable not to be a type like that.
Click to expand...

Well yes, it would. But NO dog should be in a position where it can bite any-one, except possibly a genuine burglar. It is the owner's job to make sure that no dog can get to bite a visitor to the property. A 'keep out' or similar sign, just isn't good enough. When I was growing up, we had Labs which were kept behind a gate, so that visitors/postmen etc could get to the front door without having to run the gauntlet. It also made sure that they couldn't go wandering about on their own. That was in a very different property to the one I live in now. I simply can't understand why the dog in question wasn't fenced back from the access.

It's not a breed I had heard of before but I googled it and must admit that they look gorgeous.
 
Considering some of the breeds which we'd consider to be 'Not for the average person', and mostly it seems of obscure foreign origin, I wonder what that august body The Kennel Club think of it all and more to the point, I wonder if they've headed any peer reviewed comments on the subject. I'd take an even money bet 'Not a hope in hell'!!

Alec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top