Jump to content

Risk awareness?


Recommended Posts

Because he is the owner of the dog and as such is liable.


Personally I will always say that dogs and kids don't mix..... because the first thing the owner or family member says after a dog has ripped the throatout of a baby is.... It wouldn't hurt a fly!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he's not liable, is he? No more so than if he owned a brick and someone brained the baby with it. Not a banned breed, no history of aggression, other adults in charge, Uncle not present.


I'm with Baz that it's criminal stupidity on the part of any adult to trust any dog with any small child, but I do not see how they are going to make charges stick on the Uncle. Mother or Grandmother would make more sense, as they were actually responsible for the fact that the dog had access to the baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Broadening the theme slightly: observed 3 young Mums with prams trying to cross a road. Their view to the their right was blocked by a large van - so what did they do? You guessed it - pushed the prams out infront of them, in order to see around the van, to see whether it was safe to cross! :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Too simplistic Sue. How would such a law be implemented? Could only be after an accident unless you want to give the local authority and the police power to burst in your home.

I'm afraid accidents like this always happened - thankfully a lot less now than in the old days.


Happy days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...