Toddler Attacked By Dog In Hair Salon

[gareth]

I made that clear to begin with Gareth..........dog's deserve their personal space plus...........they are someone elses belonging. Do you see a nice car parked on the side of the road and jump in to see how it feels behind the wheel???........of course not and the same applies with someone else's dog which is not for the general public's pleasure.

Nothing is clear in your posts. You don't go to jail for fondling strange dogs, so still waiting for an answer to my question

how you can equate fondling a strange dog to interfering with/fondling a strange person

Now add to that, stealing or using other people's property doesn't equate either

I will leave you to your strange ponderings before my brain melts.

Edited December 19, 2009 by gareth

[Diablo]

No Diablo but if you trip and fall onto someones property and it injures you they may be liable.

Dogs having their own space fine, dog approaching someone not fine. Lets not forget that the dog was just walking around not restrained in anyway. If the kid went and opened a door or anything like that ok sure we could argue that the owner had taken reasonable steps but that doesnt seem to be the case.

There is too many versions of this incident to really know.............it's been suggested also that the child hit her face on the floor and the dog didn't touch her???

[GRLC]

I shudder every time clients bring their young children to dog training. We have very strict rules about young kiddies attending and most parents understand that it is their responsibility to supervise their kids and instruct them not to approach dogs.

But there are some parents who allow their children to wonder around the training venue, left to their own devices and expect the trainers to 'babysit'. One client's young 5 year old daughter got lost and he blamed us for not watching where she went. Luckily she was found within the grounds.

One day at my clubs training a couple brought their two children out whilst the father trained their dog . My two staffordshire bull terriers were crated away from everyone else when the children came running up to my dogs in their crate i stated to the mother to not let the children near my dogs as you don't know how they will react to this situation and most definitely not try to let the children touch them , I had to continue to tell the mother not to let them near my dogs multiple times and i had to monitor where and what these children are doing . Now if these children had of been bitten by my dogs they propbaly would of had to be pts .

[Diablo]

I made that clear to begin with Gareth..........dog's deserve their personal space plus...........they are someone elses belonging. Do you see a nice car parked on the side of the road and jump in to see how it feels behind the wheel???........of course not and the same applies with someone else's dog which is not for the general public's pleasure.

Nothing is clear in your posts. You don't go to jail for fondling strange dogs, so still waiting for an answer to my question

how you can equate fondling a strange dog to interfering with/fondling a strange person

Now add to that, stealing or using other people's property doesn't equate either

I will leave you to your strange ponderings before my brain melts.

Try this one Gareth..........if it doesn't belong to you...........leave it alone, keep your hands off it

[asal]

not just dog events, one pony club an 18 month old baby ran straight into the arena into the path of 3 cantering horses. talk about panic attacks.

where was mum, in the canteen talking to friends.

[gareth]

Try this one Gareth..........if it doesn't belong to you...........leave it alone, keep your hands off it

Do you go to jail for patting someone else's dog? Why do you not understand what I am asking you? It is not that difficult.

Here is my question for the third and last time.

how you can equate fondling a strange dog to interfering with/fondling a strange person

[cavNrott]

Try this one Gareth..........if it doesn't belong to you...........leave it alone, keep your hands off it

Do you go to jail for patting someone else's dog? Why do you not understand what I am asking you? It is not that difficult.

Here is my question for the third and last time.

how you can equate fondling a strange dog to interfering with/fondling a strange person

For pity's sake will you two take your silly argument privately and quit hijacking this thread.

[Diablo]

Try this one Gareth..........if it doesn't belong to you...........leave it alone, keep your hands off it

Do you go to jail for patting someone else's dog? Why do you not understand what I am asking you? It is not that difficult.

Here is my question for the third and last time.

how you can equate fondling a strange dog to interfering with/fondling a strange person

For pity's sake will you two take your silly argument privately and quit hijacking this thread.

And what relevence to the thread is your comment CavNrott???...........absolutely nothing........a pointless post

If you bothered to read my discussion with Gareth properly on this topic, it's about interferring with someone elses dog resulting in attack.............very relevent to the thread thanks

[Greytmate]

Having spent a lot of time at public events with my dogs, I can say that the vast majority of children are taught to respect boundaries and do not rush over to strange dogs. Most kids understand that you don't just touch dogs belonging to other people, unless they are sure that it is ok. (Unfortunately, it seems that some kids are conditioned to think its ok if the dog is tiny and cute or fluffy)

But many toddlers suddenly do want to rush up to dogs. Unless they are physically restrained, they behave in a way that leaves them most vulnerable because they do not have the mental restraint that older children have. They rush towards things that interest them and they want to interact with interesting things.

Dog control laws are a bit like pool fencing laws. Dogs and pools are great, and not intrinsicly harmful, but the responsiblity falls upon the owners of the dogs and the pools to provide a physical barrier to keep toddlers away.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Greytmate

[Akayla]

Nicely put Greymate.

[Diablo]

Having spent a lot of time at public events with my dogs, I can say that the vast majority of children are taught to respect boundaries and do not rush over to strange dogs. Most kids understand that you don't just touch dogs belonging to other people, unless they are sure that it is ok. (Unfortunately, it seems that some kids are conditioned to think its ok if the dog is tiny and cute or fluffy)

But many toddlers suddenly do want to rush up to dogs. Unless they are physically restrained, they behave in a way that leaves them most vulnerable because they do not have the mental restraint that older children have. They rush towards things that interest them and they want to interact with interesting things.

Dog control laws are a bit like pool fencing laws. Dogs and pools are great, and not intrinsicly harmful, but the responsiblity falls upon the owners of the dogs and the pools to provide a physical barrier to keep toddlers away.

There are no dog control laws in SA that reflect anything concering toddlers Greytmate This has been tested a few times in SA were basically a dog restrained by a person 16 years or older on a leash not exceeding 2 metres in length complies with the requirements of "effective control". Anything rushing at a dog in those circumstances and injured as a result has no legal responsibility against the dog owner.

[Greytmate]

Diablo this dog was unrestrained and under Victorian law. If the dog had been within 2 metres of its owner and attached to it by a lead, the owner would have had a better chance of avoiding his dog being approached by the toddler or stepping in between. In this case the owner was cutting hair, the toddler did what toddlers do when temptation is easily accessable to them. They went near the dog, and it seems nobody was watching closely enough to say what really happenned next.

This may have been the first time the dog reacted to a toddler, and by the looks of things it wasn't a huge display of aggression, just a bit of an over-reaction. Maybe the dog didn't feel well that day. It may not have been normal for that dog, but it is not outside normal dog behaviour. It is unacceptable so we can try to look for reasons for it we cannot make excuses for it. We cannot guarantee it will never happen again either.

I imagine the dog would be declared dangerous, and it will be up to the owner to maintain a positive attitude about that to make sure the dog continues to enjoy a good quality of life.

[Diablo]

Diablo this dog was unrestrained and under Victorian law. If the dog had been within 2 metres of its owner and attached to it by a lead, the owner would have had a better chance of avoiding his dog being approached by the toddler or stepping in between. In this case the owner was cutting hair, the toddler did what toddlers do when temptation is easily accessable to them. They went near the dog, and it seems nobody was watching closely enough to say what really happenned next.

This may have been the first time the dog reacted to a toddler, and by the looks of things it wasn't a huge display of aggression, just a bit of an over-reaction. Maybe the dog didn't feel well that day. It may not have been normal for that dog, but it is not outside normal dog behaviour. It is unacceptable so we can try to look for reasons for it we cannot make excuses for it. We cannot guarantee it will never happen again either.

I imagine the dog would be declared dangerous, and it will be up to the owner to maintain a positive attitude about that to make sure the dog continues to enjoy a good quality of life.

Dog control laws are a bit like pool fencing laws. Dogs and pools are great, and not intrinsicly harmful, but the responsiblity falls upon the owners of the dogs and the pools to provide a physical barrier to keep toddlers away

I am responding to your comment Greytmate, about the responsibility of dog owners to provide a physical barrier to keep toddlers away???. The salon dog off leash unrestrained is an issue I agree, but a tethered/chained dog can also injure a toddler if close enough, which is not the dog owners responsibility in such a case. Under SA law I refer purely as an example, had the salon dog been tethered to something in the shop on a 2 metre or shorter leash and the same situation occurred with a toddler approaching the dog and suffering an injury, the dog owner has committed no legal breach whatoever and the child's parent/carer is at fault in that instance.

I am thinking, would the child's injury have been prevented in the salon had the dog been tethered........possibly not in the circumstances???????.

[Akayla]

Diablo it used to be that the owner also had to prove that the dog wasnt just aggressive and a threat to people - ie that it was provoked enough to bite said person or child. Different state and a while ago now.

Better yet if it was actually under control like locked away in a different area not accessible for the public.

[Diablo]

Diablo it used to be that the owner also had to prove that the dog wasnt just aggressive and a threat to people - ie that it was provoked enough to bite said person or child. Different state and a while ago now.

Better yet if it was actually under control like locked away in a different area not accessible for the public.

We have taken our dogs to work for 30 years, but they don't have public access which avoids any situations like the salon incident. He cruises around the office area where six people have access and some work who are his friends and he is generally laying next to my wife's desk. My wife takes him out into the yard for exercise which has public access but he is always leashed outside of the office area. Our responsibility is to protect our dog from potential litigation at work, and free public access for a dog doesn't provide much defence should something go wrong and personally wouldn't take that risk.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Diablo

[Greytmate]

There are no dog control laws in SA that reflect anything concering toddlers Greytmate This has been tested a few times in SA were basically a dog restrained by a person 16 years or older on a leash not exceeding 2 metres in length complies with the requirements of "effective control". Anything rushing at a dog in those circumstances and injured as a result has no legal responsibility against the dog owner.

Under SA law I refer purely as an example, had the salon dog been tethered to something in the shop on a 2 metre or shorter leash and the same situation occurred with a toddler approaching the dog and suffering an injury, the dog owner has committed no legal breach whatoever and the child's parent/carer is at fault in that instance.

Talking about SA law is irrelevant in a Victorian case.

But I don't understand your examples anyway. Are you talking about a law where for a dog to be under effective control it must be attached to a leash no longer than 2 metres in length, with the other end of the leash held by a person 16 years of age or older? Or are you telling us the law says that you can take dogs into public access areas and leave them tethered to buildings and unattended by anyone?

[Diablo]

There are no dog control laws in SA that reflect anything concering toddlers Greytmate This has been tested a few times in SA were basically a dog restrained by a person 16 years or older on a leash not exceeding 2 metres in length complies with the requirements of "effective control". Anything rushing at a dog in those circumstances and injured as a result has no legal responsibility against the dog owner.

Under SA law I refer purely as an example, had the salon dog been tethered to something in the shop on a 2 metre or shorter leash and the same situation occurred with a toddler approaching the dog and suffering an injury, the dog owner has committed no legal breach whatoever and the child's parent/carer is at fault in that instance.

Talking about SA law is irrelevant in a Victorian case.

But I don't understand your examples anyway. Are you talking about a law where for a dog to be under effective control it must be attached to a leash no longer than 2 metres in length, with the other end of the leash held by a person 16 years of age or older? Or are you telling us the law says that you can take dogs into public access areas and leave them tethered to buildings and unattended by anyone?

Correct. In a place where the public have lawful access, a dog must be under effective control either by a person 16 or over at the end of the leash or tethered to a fixture or enclosed in a structure or car where it can't escape to wander at large. It's lawful to tether a dog outside a shop for example.

[♪♫LMBC♫♪]

yes because hairdressers are all about safety with their scissors, spiky objects, hot presses, crimpers, bleach etc.. Sorry but a child shouldnt be allowed to roam around a hairdressers period because it isnt a safe area.. What if the kid decided that cup of bleach next to an old lady getting her hair done might be yoghurt..

You can't avoid having children in a hair salon. Whether you agree with it or not, the fact is people can and do bring their children with them to the salon. So it is the responsibility of the hairdressers to make sure they are not leaving dangerous things withing reach of small children.

I've never been to a salon where dangerous chemicals were not stored at height, or in locked cupboards or a seperate room with a closed door, and hairdressers keep their scissors, hot irons, and other dangerous equipment stored away in trolleys (or sitting on top of the trolley while in use).

Its simple really. If a child manages to get their hands on anything dangerous and gets hurt, then obviously someone has been irresponsible by leaving it where the child could get to it.

[Nannas]

You can't avoid having children in a hair salon. Whether you agree with it or not, the fact is people can and do bring their children with them to the salon. So it is the responsibility of the hairdressers to make sure they are not leaving dangerous things withing reach of small children.

I've never been to a salon where dangerous chemicals were not stored at height, or in locked cupboards or a seperate room with a closed door, and hairdressers keep their scissors, hot irons, and other dangerous equipment stored away in trolleys (or sitting on top of the trolley while in use).

Its simple really. If a child manages to get their hands on anything dangerous and gets hurt, then obviously someone has been irresponsible by leaving it where the child could get to it.

I really don't think so.

Children also regularly taken to shopping centres, carparks, supermarkets, parks etc etc etc it is NOT up to the supermarket owners, car park users, shopping centre employees nor park employees to be responsible for everyones children. It is up to the PARENTS.

That is half the reason we have so many uncontrolable, ratbag, no mannered children today,,because the parents don't take any responsibily for them.

What ever happened to the parent being responsible for their own children?? Why isn't the parent watching the child??

So business owners now not only have to run a business, deal with customers and accounts but offer FREE babysitting for customers as well???

So that would mean IF the child was about to touch something dangerous, the business owner, (who by your thinking is responsible for the child) has FULL right to walk up and SMACK the child??

Most businesses have things kept up or away and it ISN'T because they are volunteering to take responsibilty for your children it is due to OH&S laws.

[Ashanali]

yes because hairdressers are all about safety with their scissors, spiky objects, hot presses, crimpers, bleach etc.. Sorry but a child shouldnt be allowed to roam around a hairdressers period because it isnt a safe area.. What if the kid decided that cup of bleach next to an old lady getting her hair done might be yoghurt..

You can't avoid having children in a hair salon. Whether you agree with it or not, the fact is people can and do bring their children with them to the salon. So it is the responsibility of the hairdressers to make sure they are not leaving dangerous things withing reach of small children.

I've never been to a salon where dangerous chemicals were not stored at height, or in locked cupboards or a seperate room with a closed door, and hairdressers keep their scissors, hot irons, and other dangerous equipment stored away in trolleys (or sitting on top of the trolley while in use).

Its simple really. If a child manages to get their hands on anything dangerous and gets hurt, then obviously someone has been irresponsible by leaving it where the child could get to it.

You don't have children... that is clearly obvious.