MY 20 year old son was out walking our BT today when coming in the opposite direction was a lady with a Golden retriever and a Choccy Lab.
The GR decided to slabber, snarl and go for my dog, the lady was surprised and unprepared for this outburst and he tripped her up, she let go of the lead and he ran barking and snarling to my son and dog, my son put his leg out foolishly to try and block it and our dog grabbed it by the side of the neck. Obviously a lot of screaming and shouting went on and my son managed to get our dog to let go.
The poor woman had fallen over and was covered in mud. My son held our dog back (he was whining but showing no signs of aggression) until she had managed to get her GR back to her, she checked it over and said she didn't think he was punctured but would check him over when she got home. Both of them where shaken and my son called me in a panic. He gave her our address in case she wanted to come round after she had checked her boy out.

I am now worried that she will be on the doorstep asking for vet fees or even worse bad mouthing my breed over the very small village we live in.

So who do you think is to blame?

I think our boy was in protection mode as if someone was running towards me in a threatening manner you would want to defend yourself.
My other worry now is that after this my boy will become defensive when out around other dogs again, and become fear aggressive like my giant breed did when she was attacked by 2 BCs a couple of years ago.

If your dog was with you (on lead??) and the other dog charged into his space and was aggressive towards him, I can't see how it is your fault. 

If your dog moved out of your vicinity to attack, then perhaps.  But if the other woman's dog charged up to you, I can't see it. 

It would also depend on the injuries sustained though.  If there was no puncture mark, then your dog didn't really mean to seriously cause harm (because he could easily have done that, if he wanted).  If there were puncture marks, then I think you should want to know about it, because you may need to consider muzzling your dog in future - all scenarios can't be foreseen (as this shows).

yep our dog was on a lead always is.

He is an ex show dog and has always been around other dogs all his life, very well socialised, he is very excitable and whinges a lot but has never shown aggression to any other animal at all.

i am so upset over it and my son is mortified that this happened when he was walking him, i think what makes it slightly worse is that my son had his top lip severed when he was 9 by a GR and spent 3 days in hospital

It just goes to show you really need to be able to read the body language of not only our own dog but others you see when you are out, I keep thinking if i was walking him could this have been avoided.

Well don't blame yourself, not your fault.  If your dog was on a lead and their dog was (effectively) off lead, then there's no way it's your fault.  That dog invaded your space and was very aggressive and rude into the bargain. 

It can't possibly have been your dog's fault, he was on lead, the other dog attacked, broke free of his owner, and ran over to your dog. Do not accept any blame or pay any vet fees! Try to find some nice friendly GRs or similar breeds for your dog to meet, in a casual way, don't force him to say hello if he's a little worried.

I totally agree - your dog was on a lead - hers effectively wasn't.  It's extremely unfortunate she fell over & her dog got away - but even if hers was severely damaged I'm afraid she didn't keep her dog under control.  I'm just sorry for your son who is not at fault at all - but is probably upset by the whole incident.

I do have sympathy but I am shocked that we have come to such a state that everything has to be considered someone's fault - what has happened to an unfortunate accident, and dogs will be dogs.

Unfortunately that happened when the 'where there's blame there's a claim' culture
landed on our shores - now common sense seems to be a rare commodity.

Agree with everyone, nothing to worry about your boy is not at fault in any way or your dog. Vet bills pah! Any problems then tell the woman to take a running jump.

I have to say what a lovely young man you must have raised, not only did he try his best to protect your dog, foot raised no problem in this inst, perfectly acceptable and instinctual to protect your dog, not a problem there, but he also gave the woman your address thinking he was doing the correct thing and being gentlemanly. A very nice young man you have there. :-)

Although, it was un-necessary as the GR's owner is totally to blame though.

Relax and don't worry and fingers crossed it has not harmed your dogs character. Socialise with friendly dogs asap. :-)

I am sorry to disagree with other posters but I recently attended a Dogs and The Law seminar and this type of scenario was described. Nearly everyone present thought that if a dog was on it's lead it was deemed to be under control and would not be held responsible if another dog ran over and there was a fight, but apparently that is not the case in the eyes of the law. Unless there were witnesses, it will be your son's word against the other owner's word. The other owner could claim that her dog was just being friendly and ran over to play, when your dog aggressively attacked it.

I know this is unfair, but am only telling it as it was exlained to us.

If you are really worried why don't you give Trevor Coopers firm a ring then you will know just where you stand. They have a website www.doglaw.co.cuk.

thanks for all the replies, my mind is settled a lot now.

I think I went into panic mode as living in a small village with equally small minded people and having the only Bull breed, with all the bad press Bull breeds get in general I had visions of police on the doorstep and all sorts.

Thankfully the lady has not been round to see me yet, I expect she was in shock, especially as she had said her dog had never behaved in that way before.

Back in the saddle today and I shall be walking him as I can read his body language better than my son.

Hopefully it won't come to anything and my panic was for nothing, just wanted honest opinions on how the situation could have so easily been escalated.

I love this forum it keeps me sane.

Maybe your dog acted this way(out of character) as you son is nervous around GR's after being bitten?  Your dog would have felt his worry straight down the lead and maybe just acted on this.

I'm glad you are feeling stronger today!

On the surface of it, it is clearly all accidental on both sides and accidents happen. I would say nobody was at fault since both parties were clearly trying to control their dogs. Dogs will be dogs and sometimes dogs bite each other.

However, as we become more Americanised and creep towards an increasingly litigious society I think you are wise to at least consider consequences. Lawyers are often happy to have a crack at a case if they think they can see a way through. That is why it is so important to have third party insurance these days because you never know who might decide to try to extract money from you, no matter how tenuous the grounds.

I think it is unlikely anything will come of this, or that the woman would get anywhere if she tried- after all, technically her dog was offlead and 'out of control'. I'd just say, go ahead try to sue me or you threaten to counter sue, since her dog was offlead and showed aggression first.

Goldiemad,

Sorry only just seen your post. Yes, but which law? The dog did not threaten the woman, it reacted to another dog offlead in its face- if the bullbreed has no previous I cannot see how the case could be prosecuted. Which law, not the DDA, surely? I doubt there'd be grounds under the Animals Act 1971. Possibly a civil action under Dog's Act 1871, but then it could work as well for both sides couldn't it. I'm interested in what you say as I think all of us need to be more aware of what could be done in law in future.

Freelancerukuk,

I don't take Goldmali's post as pointing out a law, the GR was the instigator and the owner be at fault if the situation were reported honestly.

Goldmali is pointing out that people LIE, with no witnesses the owner could LIE and say her dog was not being aggressive ending up with the OP's dog needing to be muzzled by a court or dog warden if that story were believed, so never count your chickens, people sue and lie all the time, she is quite rightly pointing this fact out, unfortunately in this sue crazy world honesty is not always forthcoming. :-(

> ending up with the OP's dog needing to be muzzled by a court

To be honest even if the OPs dog did attack the other one nothing would happen. In my village we have two rottweilers that have both bitten other dogs, unprovoked attacks ending in the other dogs needing emergency treatment, nothing has happened to either dog. One dog has attacked 1 other dogs and the other rottie has attacked and maimed 4 dogs in the village now! Police aren't interested, the 'innocent' dogs owners have complained to the dog warden who has had a chat with each rottie owner, both are still walked unmuzzled. Apparently it's quite ok for your dog to tear other dogs apart in the eyes of the law :-(

I think that often local police do not know the law. I may be wrong, but I believe that in law there might be a way to at least bring civil action against the dogs you describe Chaumsong, but it would take a very determined person with deep pockets. It's only when you begin to look at case law that you see some of the odd precedents that are set. Under the Dogs Act 1871 I believe it is a civil offence if a dog is dangerous to people or animals and not kept under proper control (usually on a lead and/or muzzled). This can apply both to private and public places. The dog can be ordered to be destroyed or to be controlled in other ways and the defendant can be ordered to pay costs.

And of course the laws in the different parts of the UK (Scotland and England, for example) aren't always the same.

JG, True. Perhaps one of our leaglebeagles can say what they think. Also you get one court and it'll decide one thing and another something else.

I don't take Goldmali's post as pointing out a law,

Just to point out it wasn't me. :)

If the Goldie was acting out of control in a public place, then this is also covered by the DDA so you could argue that in your defence, if you ever needed to. Hopefully the woman will realise she needs to get a bit more control over her dog and your BT will meet some nicely behaved dogs to redress the balance if it is needed.

Hi freelancerukuk
The point I was trying to make, but probably not as clearly as Trevor Cooper, was that in the eyes of the law, no matter which Act we are talking about, a dog being on lead does not offer it any protection from blame, if it was involved in an incident and caused an injury to another dog. As he explained, without witnesses, it would merely be the word of one person against the other. He suggested that by far the best course of action would be for the owner of the dog doing the damage to agree to pay the other person's vet bill and in future err on the side of caution and muzzle the dog, even if it was kept on a lead at all times.

I admit that I always believed that a dog was deemed to be under control if it was on a lead, and was quite shocked to hear the above. It's quite frightening really, but to be honest if my dog ever caused an injury to another, then I would have no hesitation in paying the vet fees.

> in the eyes of the law, no matter which Act we are talking about, a dog being on lead does not offer it any protection from blame,

Yet, if a dog is ruled to be a danger, it can be ordered to be kept on a lead when off the owners property - a control order ?

I'm not trying to argue with you, I know you are passing on info, I am just trying to understand. I always keep my dog leashed and have always thought that if he was attacked by a loose dog and defended himself, then I would have nothing to worry about (he's friendly, but his size gets many dogs on the defensive).

Dashing out now so not much time, but do control orders not usually include the dog being muzzled AND kept on lead? A muzzled dog allowed to run free can still be quite a menace even if it can't cause damage by biting another dog.

>He suggested that by far the best course of action would be for the owner of the dog doing the damage to agree to pay the other person's vet bill

That always used to be the normal procedure when dogs had a scrap, but now it seems someone must be 'blamed'. :-(

Just to point out it wasn't me.

Sorry Goldmali, I'm going to have to watch that, not used to seeing another Gold.... on the board. :-D (Goldiemad's only been on the board since 2008) :-D :-D

I'm very happy to be corrected but I think there are degrees of culpability aren't there? But yes, a dog that is on lead and yet manages to lunge out and bite someone could be viewed as out of control- but the context and evidence involved might provide aggravating or mitigating factors. For instance if that person is highly aggressive to you and has walked into your space uninvited and your dog has no prior history of aggression to people or dogs. Also, under the Dog Act 1871 a Magistrates Court can make various orders to control dangerous dogs, some of which do involve leashing and/or muzzling your dog.

Actually, the more I think about this the odder it seems. It is a well known fact that many dogs might under certain circumstances will react badly to another dog getting into its space- especially when it's on a lead. I am thinking in terms of two intact males or two bitches that don't get on. If this really is a reflection of current thinking in terms of the legislation it seems not to take into account known dog behaviour. Laws are generally shaped to protect extreme cases, but to start prosecuting on the grounds described seems almost an abuse of the law designed to fill lawyer's pockets.

I see what you are saying freelancerukuk. It is a worry how things are changing with the onset of the 'blame' culture but what surprised me the most was how difficult it was for a prosecution to be brought against another dog owner for dog on dog incidents. I think the message he was trying to get over was that we should not feel 'safe' just because our dog was on lead in the unfortunate event that there was an incident involving our on lead dog. I am probably not exlaining it clearly, but just wanted to warn people that their dog is not 'safe' just because it was on it's lead.

The seminars are held all over the country and I would really recommend them to any dog owner. :)

To the openning poster, please don't think I was implying your dog was to blame, but just wanted to warn you to tread carefully had the other owner appeared on your doorstep.

Goldiemad,

I am grateful for your input- I think these sorts of discussion are important.

If I have understood you correctly the point is that dog on dog prosecutions are difficult to mount and I would hazard a guess that on that basis alone the first poster has little to worry about. However, the law is open to interpretation, it is not static, so it is good for us to be aware of what the lawyers are saying.

It is my understanding that it is a lot easier to make a complaint under the Dogs Act 1871 for a civil offence, where the definition of dangerous includes  offences to other animals as well as people. There is also the Metropolitan Police Act and Town Police Clauses Act (Eng and Wales) which make it an offence to have an unmuzzled ferocious dog at large and for such an animal to put an animal or person in fear- that is if the dog is deliberately set on a person, dog or animal, or urged to have a go.

I came a cropper a few years ago with a similar scenario, aggressive Pap ran out of its un fenced garden and ran across a road to have a go at my three leashed dogs, resulting in the Pap sustaining bruising ( quite remarkable seeing as I had two Staffies and a TM ). The owner tried to get me to pay her £200 vet bill, which I refused as she knew her dogs did this but took no steps to prevent it, or to have her garden made secure, I had been on the other side of the road and my dogs offered no reaction until the dog was right in amongst them. She then called the police and played the " what if that had been a child " card, which was a damned cheek given she admitted in front of the WPC that her dogs ran out at people too.
The whole thing came to nothing in the end, except the lady now has gates on her property.

Celli,

This is what I mean by degrees of culpability. If say a dog is on the lead and it lunges out and bites a child and that dog is also known to have aggression issues around children, then I would suggest the owner will come a cropper if prosecuted. However, if a dog is on a lead and a child runs right up to it screaming and pokes a finger in its eye, and the dog has no known aggression issues but on this occasion bites the child, I imagine a prosecution might take place, but I would think at the very most the owner would be advised to muzzle the dog. However, I may be completely wrong, which is quite a scary thought (I mean highly punitive measures against dog and owner under DDA, not me being wrong!).

"by far the best course of action would be for the owner of the dog doing the damage to agree to pay the other person's vet bill and in future err on the side of caution and muzzle the dog, even if it was kept on a lead at all times."

I personally would only offer to pay half, if at all, as this is admitting liability when the whole incident was caused by the other person's dog being out of control.

If your dog was with you (on lead??) and the other dog charged into his space and was aggressive towards him, I can't see how it is your fault.

The law says that if a dog is not on a lead it's legally classed as out of control, regardless of if anything does or does not happen. There has been changes to the law that I think that law now extends to on your own property indoors or out but I am not really sure of the exact meaning or wording of it.

an update peoples.

The lady has seen my son and apologised again for her goldies behaviour. There wasn't any damage to him (which if my boy had of meant the grab there wouldn't have been much chance of getting him off).

She now only takes him out on his own and not with the lab as the lab is quite young and she was worried the goldie was in this pup is mine mode.

We have however bought a muzzle for when my son walks him in future, for his own peace of mind.

As for being worried he would be fear aggressive....nonesense, we took him to the vet s the other day and a shitzhu came up to him cone on as well to have a sniff and a wag. My boy just wagged his tail and moaned.

I am grateful for all the advice, but as you can tell I totally panicked, as being a totally responsible bt owner, and worried for the future of all Bull type breeds and the BSL, i was worried if it came to it she would blame my breed because of who he is.