Toddler Attacked By Dog In Hair Salon

[The Spotted Devil]

Update in The Age: http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/owner-to-p...00305-poxa.html

Owner to pay $6000 after dog attacks toddler

STEVE BUTCHER March 06, 2010

THE owner of a trendy South Yarra hair salon whose unregistered Siberian husky savaged a 22-month-old girl has been penalised more than $6000. Charlotte McKnight was rushed to hospital with a gash from her lip to her cheek after the dog, named Muchachos, attacked her in the premises last November. Charlotte had surgery at the Royal Children's Hospital. The Melbourne Magistrates Court heard yesterday heard that scarring to Charlotte would fade but she continued to have psychological treatment. The proprietor of Ghassan Hair Style, Ghassan Saouda, 46, was absent when Muchachos bit Charlotte after a staff member told her mother ''you don't have to worry about the dog with kids, he's used to people''.

Matt Sherwell, prosecuting, told the court that the children played at the back of the salon before the dog growled and lunged at Charlotte, who had lost her balance and put her hands on the floor. Mr Sherwell said Charlotte required ongoing treatment, was concerned about dogs, was ''quite clingy'' and took time to calm when upset. Saouda pleaded guilty to three charges, including owning a dog that bit a person and possessing an unregistered dog. Defence lawyer Anthony Bucca said it was not known why the dog attacked, but if someone had acted logically the dog would have been removed. Mr Bucca said Saouda was ''shattered'' and understood the trauma suffered by Charlotte and her parents. Muchachos had been ''part of the furniture'' at the salon and since his seizure by council officers hundreds had signed a petition to save him.

It was revealed yesterday that as Saouda had voluntarily declared his dog dangerous, which involved now housing it in an enclosure with warning signs and a muzzle, it would not be destroyed.

Magistrate Donna Bakos accepted the attack was unexpected and unintended, but she said: ''It is not possible to live in our community and not be aware that you must at all times supervise dogs in the presence of children.''

Saouda was fined without conviction and ordered to pay compensation and costs - including pound fees - totalling $6716 and a $1000 fine for a Food Act offence.

[casowner]

The fact still stands that it is a Hairdressing Salon, not a Vet Clinic, Pet Shop or Grooming Salon you do not expect to have a dog in there, not only for the obvious reasons but also for OH&S reasons.

Diablo you still have not provided the link regarding SA and as someone in the Pet Industry in SA if that is actual legislation I would like to see it - to educate myself as I have been unable to find it.

LED is the dog desexed?

Poor child, if the dog was part of the furniture in the salon, why wasn't he even registered? Another irresponsible owner and now a dog with a Dangerous Dog Order put on it. The staff member should have been made responsible too if they had said toher mother ''you don't have to worry about the dog with kids, he's used to people''. Of course the parents should have been more responsible aslo.

Diablo you were asked 4 times about the legislation that you mentioned which would have made the owner not responsible due to "provaction". I still haven't seen it.

Quote Diablo

Under SA legislation, it would be clear cut case of provocation. It makes no difference if the child fell onto the dog or intentionally pulled it's tail, the dog was mistreated and reacted. The dog has the right to sit in peace without being hurt or startled by misadventure. Because the victim was a defenceless child, doesn't make the dog anymore at fault in the circumstances.

Edited March 6, 2010 by casowner

[RL1]

''It is not possible to live in our community and not be aware that you must at all times supervise dogs in the presence of children.''

It's also not possible to live in our community and not be aware that you must at all times supervise children in the presence of dogs.

Both parties at fault. Both morons.

Poor little kid, stupid parent. Poor dog, stupid owner.

[Bluefairy]

The fact still stands that it is a Hairdressing Salon, not a Vet Clinic, Pet Shop or Grooming Salon you do not expect to have a dog in there, not only for the obvious reasons but also for OH&S reasons.

Diablo you still have not provided the link regarding SA and as someone in the Pet Industry in SA if that is actual legislation I would like to see it - to educate myself as I have been unable to find it.

LED is the dog desexed?

Poor child, if the dog was part of the furniture in the salon, why wasn't he even registered? Another irresponsible owner and now a dog with a Dangerous Dog Order put on it. The staff member should have been made responsible too if they had said toher mother ''you don't have to worry about the dog with kids, he's used to people''. Of course the parents should have been more responsible aslo.

Diablo you were asked 4 times about the legislation that you mentioned which would have made the owner not responsible due to "provaction". I still haven't seen it.

Quote Diablo

Under SA legislation, it would be clear cut case of provocation. It makes no difference if the child fell onto the dog or intentionally pulled it's tail, the dog was mistreated and reacted. The dog has the right to sit in peace without being hurt or startled by misadventure. Because the victim was a defenceless child, doesn't make the dog anymore at fault in the circumstances.

I couldn't find any legislation to back up what Diablo said, but I did find this:

Dog and Cat Management Act 1995—1.2.2010

Part 5—Management of dogs

Division 1—Offences relating to duties of owners and others responsible for control of dog

44—Dogs not to be allowed to attack etc

(1) A person who sets on or urges a dog to attack, harass or chase a person or an animal or

bird owned by or in the charge of another person is guilty of an offence (whether or

not actual injury is caused).

Maximum penalty: $10 000 or imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) A person who owns or is responsible for the control of a dog is guilty of an offence if

the dog attacks, harasses or chases or otherwise endangers the health of a person or an

animal or bird owned by or in the charge of another person (whether or not actual

injury is caused).

Maximum penalty: $2 500.

Expiation fee: $210.

(3) A person who is guilty of an offence against this section is guilty of an aggravated

offence if the offence relates to a dog that is a dangerous dog or a dog of a prescribed

breed and, on conviction, the person is liable to a monetary penalty not exceeding

double the monetary penalty, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding double the

term, that would otherwise apply under this section for that offence.

(4) It is a defence to a charge of an offence against this section if it is proved that the dog

was at the time of the offence being genuinely used in the reasonable defence of a

person or property, or for droving or removing an animal found trespassing.

BF

[casowner]

Thank you Blue Fairy I do have that Legislation I do not believe the Legislation that Diablo referrred to in fact exists since when does a child falling on a dog constitute provacation? Quote "Under SA legislation, it would be clear cut case of provocation. It makes no difference if the child fell onto the dog or intentionally pulled it's tail, the dog was mistreated and reacted."

I just get frustrated when people make those kind of sweeping statements and do not follow them up with fact, uneducated people may read that and think that it minimises their own responsibilities in these cases on both sides. I understand that forums are all about peoples personal opinions but Diablo referred to Legislation that more than one person has asked to see. I have spoken to the right people and am under the belief that it isn't true and if I am to stand being corrected I would appreciate being educated.

[Bluefairy]

Casowner ~ I totally agree with you. I put the only legislation I could find about dogs attacking up, so Diablo is definitely wrong or misinformed they do say dogs can attack if protecting its property, but how is a child classed as a threat to property??? I feel for the dog, and it makes me mad that the dog was placed in this situation, plus I'm mad the mother wasn't watching what her child is doing. The only ones not to blame are the dog and the child. And people who make claims and don't back them up make me mad too

BF

[Diva]

It's also not possible to live in our community and not be aware that you must at all times supervise children in the presence of dogs.

Both parties at fault. Both morons.

Amen to that.

[Longcoat]

Casowner ~ I totally agree with you. I put the only legislation I could find about dogs attacking up, so Diablo is definitely wrong or misinformed they do say dogs can attack if protecting its property, but how is a child classed as a threat to property??? I feel for the dog, and it makes me mad that the dog was placed in this situation, plus I'm mad the mother wasn't watching what her child is doing. The only ones not to blame are the dog and the child. And people who make claims and don't back them up make me mad too

BF

SECTION 66(4) Dog and Cat Management Act

If the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the injury, damage or loss, the damages will

be reduced to the extent the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the

plaintiff's share in responsibility for injury, damage or loss.

I don't believe that Diablo is definitely wrong with reference to Section 66 of the act which applies in SA. It could be argued under this section in SA that the little girl startled the dog by tripping or placing her hands on the ground to the effect of what has been reported and contributed to the dog's reaction. Definitely some legal angle here to mount a defence. I don't know if any similar angle applies in Victoria though???

Other laws also exist in SA where the dog is in possession of someone other than the owner which in the salon incident, the owner of the dog is reported to have been absent from the premises at the time.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Longcoat

[Winterpaws]

Update in The Age: http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/owner-to-p...00305-poxa.html

Owner to pay $6000 after dog attacks toddler

STEVE BUTCHER March 06, 2010

THE owner of a trendy South Yarra hair salon whose unregistered Siberian husky savaged a 22-month-old girl has been penalised more than $6000. Charlotte McKnight was rushed to hospital with a gash from her lip to her cheek after the dog, named Muchachos, attacked her in the premises last November. Charlotte had surgery at the Royal Children's Hospital. The Melbourne Magistrates Court heard yesterday heard that scarring to Charlotte would fade but she continued to have psychological treatment. The proprietor of Ghassan Hair Style, Ghassan Saouda, 46, was absent when Muchachos bit Charlotte after a staff member told her mother ''you don't have to worry about the dog with kids, he's used to people''.

Matt Sherwell, prosecuting, told the court that the children played at the back of the salon before the dog growled and lunged at Charlotte, who had lost her balance and put her hands on the floor. Mr Sherwell said Charlotte required ongoing treatment, was concerned about dogs, was ''quite clingy'' and took time to calm when upset. Saouda pleaded guilty to three charges, including owning a dog that bit a person and possessing an unregistered dog. Defence lawyer Anthony Bucca said it was not known why the dog attacked, but if someone had acted logically the dog would have been removed. Mr Bucca said Saouda was ''shattered'' and understood the trauma suffered by Charlotte and her parents. Muchachos had been ''part of the furniture'' at the salon and since his seizure by council officers hundreds had signed a petition to save him.

It was revealed yesterday that as Saouda had voluntarily declared his dog dangerous, which involved now housing it in an enclosure with warning signs and a muzzle, it would not be destroyed.

Magistrate Donna Bakos accepted the attack was unexpected and unintended, but she said: ''It is not possible to live in our community and not be aware that you must at all times supervise dogs in the presence of children.''

Saouda was fined without conviction and ordered to pay compensation and costs - including pound fees - totalling $6716 and a $1000 fine for a Food Act offence.

Should that not be the responsibility of the parents..... ridiculous!

[Longcoat]

Update in The Age: http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/owner-to-p...00305-poxa.html

Owner to pay $6000 after dog attacks toddler

STEVE BUTCHER March 06, 2010

THE owner of a trendy South Yarra hair salon whose unregistered Siberian husky savaged a 22-month-old girl has been penalised more than $6000. Charlotte McKnight was rushed to hospital with a gash from her lip to her cheek after the dog, named Muchachos, attacked her in the premises last November. Charlotte had surgery at the Royal Children's Hospital. The Melbourne Magistrates Court heard yesterday heard that scarring to Charlotte would fade but she continued to have psychological treatment. The proprietor of Ghassan Hair Style, Ghassan Saouda, 46, was absent when Muchachos bit Charlotte after a staff member told her mother ''you don't have to worry about the dog with kids, he's used to people''.

Matt Sherwell, prosecuting, told the court that the children played at the back of the salon before the dog growled and lunged at Charlotte, who had lost her balance and put her hands on the floor. Mr Sherwell said Charlotte required ongoing treatment, was concerned about dogs, was ''quite clingy'' and took time to calm when upset. Saouda pleaded guilty to three charges, including owning a dog that bit a person and possessing an unregistered dog. Defence lawyer Anthony Bucca said it was not known why the dog attacked, but if someone had acted logically the dog would have been removed. Mr Bucca said Saouda was ''shattered'' and understood the trauma suffered by Charlotte and her parents. Muchachos had been ''part of the furniture'' at the salon and since his seizure by council officers hundreds had signed a petition to save him.

It was revealed yesterday that as Saouda had voluntarily declared his dog dangerous, which involved now housing it in an enclosure with warning signs and a muzzle, it would not be destroyed.

Magistrate Donna Bakos accepted the attack was unexpected and unintended, but she said: ''It is not possible to live in our community and not be aware that you must at all times supervise dogs in the presence of children.''

Saouda was fined without conviction and ordered to pay compensation and costs - including pound fees - totalling $6716 and a $1000 fine for a Food Act offence.

Should that not be the responsibility of the parents..... ridiculous!

I would question their solicitors ability to argue the case effectively

[♪♫LMBC♫♪]

If the parents were told not to worry about the dog, maybe they thought it was ok to just let them play. Lots of people don't realise how important it is to supervise dogs with kids. It might have been stupid but I still think that the hairdresser is more responsible for having the dog their in the first place. When you bring your dog to a place where you know there are going to be children, you have to be prepared to take responsibility.

[Longcoat]

If the parents were told not to worry about the dog, maybe they thought it was ok to just let them play. Lots of people don't realise how important it is to supervise dogs with kids. It might have been stupid but I still think that the hairdresser is more responsible for having the dog their in the first place. When you bring your dog to a place where you know there are going to be children, you have to be prepared to take responsibility.

Shouldn't the person who told the parents that be responsible, not the dog's owner who wasn't on the premises or in control of the dog at the time of the incident???.

[Red Ruby]

I can't believe people have dogs in a workplace that has a constant stream of clients flowing through like that! I love dogs and have Ruby inside...but if I go somewhere like the hair salon I think it is unhygienic to have a dog roaming around in a business like that. If it was a pet store or a vet or something like that, or even an office with no constant public contact, I have no problem...but I think it's wrong in a public place.

[WoofnHoof]

It might be unsafe but it's not unhygienic.

[♪♫LMBC♫♪]

If the parents were told not to worry about the dog, maybe they thought it was ok to just let them play. Lots of people don't realise how important it is to supervise dogs with kids. It might have been stupid but I still think that the hairdresser is more responsible for having the dog their in the first place. When you bring your dog to a place where you know there are going to be children, you have to be prepared to take responsibility.

Shouldn't the person who told the parents that be responsible, not the dog's owner who wasn't on the premises or in control of the dog at the time of the incident???.

I would think the owner of the business is still responsible for what goes on there, even if they are not on the premises at the time. The person who said the dog was safe was an employee. I may be wrong but aren't employers/business owners responsible for their employees?

[Longcoat]

If the parents were told not to worry about the dog, maybe they thought it was ok to just let them play. Lots of people don't realise how important it is to supervise dogs with kids. It might have been stupid but I still think that the hairdresser is more responsible for having the dog their in the first place. When you bring your dog to a place where you know there are going to be children, you have to be prepared to take responsibility.

Shouldn't the person who told the parents that be responsible, not the dog's owner who wasn't on the premises or in control of the dog at the time of the incident???.

I would think the owner of the business is still responsible for what goes on there, even if they are not on the premises at the time. The person who said the dog was safe was an employee. I may be wrong but aren't employers/business owners responsible for their employees?

If the dog goes with the premises, who ever is responsible for the premises/business in the owners absence should be responsible for the dog. Someone must have been incharge or in a better position than the owner to have changed the outcome???.