MY baby bitten on the head by friends dog.

Rick Rod

wexie wrote: »

Or it could be an indication of :

1) lost teddy
2) having to wee
3) a 'bad dream' not involving a dog
4) the fact that toddlers at a certain age start having dreams in general
5) a spider in the room
6) impending alien attack
7) an earthquake
8) serious depression over the escalating tension in the middle east
9) financial worries
10) waking up and wanting a cuddle

Will I go on?

Hypothetical situations are exactly that.

OP so far has proven to be very level headed and mature about this.

Wouldn't do you any harm to take an example in her.

Funny why the OP would mention it them on this thread then? Lost teddy ? Jesus wept !

Rick Rod

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Well done for what? Pointing out earlier that you only appear to be flaming on this thread? You have given the wrong 'advice' (it's not even that it's you ill informed opinion) since the first page of this thread. All you've done is tell the OP to claim compensation for a non existent injury and now you're trying to get her to sue for mental trauma? Get real, this isn't Judge Judy, it's two friends working out a situation that you are trying to work up to something far more.

So if care if needed to deal with the trauma you thing the OP should pay?

wexie

borderlinemeath

Rick Rod wrote: »

So if care if needed to deal with the trauma you thing the OP should pay?

Yes, she should. But it won't happen because the situation didn't warrant it. There is no 'trauma'. One bad dream does not indicate 'trauma'. Except in your little world of compensation culture.

DBB

Okay all,
Rick rod, borderlinemeath has answered your question a number of posts back, when she said that no money should change hands. Edited to add: and again in the above post.
You may not agree, that's fine. But she did answer your question.

To all: this back and forth nitpicking between everyone is not only getting tiresome, it's dragging the thread off topic.
So, can I ask that if ye want to continue the discussion, do so by pm, or start a new thread on it. If ye choose either option, keep it civil between ye.
But no more posting about who should pay what, as it just doesn't apply here until or unless the op posts that they're pursuing costs.
Let's get back on topic now.
Do not reply to this post on thread.
Thanks,
DBB

brianl1986

If care is ultimately needed I think the dog should have to pay - or if the dog doesn't have the money he should have to pay in kind by offering guard dog or butler services

ShaneSheep555

DBB wrote: »

Why would you involve the Gardai? No law was broken. This is a civil issue.
If the op were to sue, they would need to demonstrate loss, injury or damage caused by negligence. Whilst this incident was very unpleasant, I think the op would have quite the job to demonstrate any of this.
The hysteria here is... Jaw dropping. Kids have accidents, they crash into walls on their bikes, they push each other over, they fall over footpaths, so do you advocate the parents sue the owner of the wall? The kid who pushed? The council? Of course not.
This was an accident. The damage done was, thankfully, small. If the dog had previous form, then the owner would be negligent. But a first-off incident which resulted in a bruise? I don't fancy their chances.

I agree 100%. What has the Gardai got to do with this incident? You would have to get a Court Order to allow the dog to go asleep.
I find this topic incredibly ridiculous! Dog's are incredible creature's, As it was said above me - ''Kids have accidents, they crash into walls on their bikes.'' I think this proves that a child would be held responsible for the dogs actions/behavior. I find this appalling that the dog is held responsible for this incident. The dog isn't going to miraculously acknowledge what a child is.

Rick Rod

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

I agree 100%. What has the Gardai got to do with this incident? You would have to get a Court Order to allow the dog to go asleep.
I find this topic incredibly ridiculous! Dog's are incredible creature's, As it was said above me - ''Kids have accidents, they crash into walls on their bikes.'' I think this proves that a child would be held responsible for the dogs actions/behavior. I find this appalling that the dog is held responsible for this incident. The dog isn't going to miraculously acknowledge what a child is.

The dog attacked therefore it is responsible. I don't see how else you can paint it

Sofiztikated

Rick Rod wrote: »

The dog attacked therefore it is responsible. I don't see how else you can paint it

The way I read it was:

Child was petting dog.
Adult looked away.
Adult heard noise.
Looked back.

Who knows what the child did in that absence of supervision.

ShaneSheep555

Rick Rod wrote: »

The dog attacked therefore it is responsible. I don't see how else you can paint it

And do you have 100% confirmation that the dog was responsible?

Where you there?

A kid is a kid - If a dog is scared or threatened and ( naturally a child isn't going to no not to threaten the dog.)

Again, When a dog is threatened - Of course it's going to attack.

Tea Tree

interesting and useful set of pictures I just came across and good because it's a real dog rather than a cartoon.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=625556257486866&set=a.329436093765552.72228.329379537104541&type=1&theater

borderlinemeath

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

And do you have 100% confirmation that the dog was responsible?

Where you there?

A kid is a kid - If a dog is scared or threatened and ( naturally a child isn't going to no not to threaten the dog.)

Again, When a dog is threatened - Of course it's going to attack.

While your intentions are correct the dog didn't 'attack' in the conventional sense. An attack would imply that there was severe damage done. The dog warned, it gave a warning nip. It certainly didn't attack

Rick Rod

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

And do you have 100% confirmation that the dog was responsible?

Where you there?

A kid is a kid - If a dog is scared or threatened and ( naturally a child isn't going to no not to threaten the dog.)

Again, When a dog is threatened - Of course it's going to attack.

The injuries are 100% due to the dog therefore dog was responsible. Was I there you ask ? Why do you think I could have been ? Do you think I could have been there?

Frank Black

<snip>

If you post like that in this forum again, you will be infracted and banned.
Do not reply to this post.

ShaneSheep555

Rick Rod wrote: »

The injuries are 100% due to the dog therefore dog was responsible. Was I there you ask ? Why do you think I cool have been ? Do you think I could have been there?

I presume not. Again it was not 100% true that the dog was responsible.
Did you ever think outside the box? Maybe the child tugged at the dog's ear or angered the dog?

DBB

Leaving aside this current thread scenario for a moment...
How can anyone hold a creature responsible, when that creature has no concept of what responsibility is? That goes for e.g. a baby, an adult with learning difficulties, a dog, or a goldfish.
If there is responsibility, it is the owner's. Most certainly not the dog's. Nor the child's, goldfish's etc.
Honestly, if you're going to philosophise, please try to make it a rational debate!

ShaneSheep555

DBB wrote: »

Leaving aside this current thread scenario for a moment...
How can anyone hold a creature responsible, when that creature has no concept of what responsibility is? That goes for e.g. a baby, an adult with learning difficulties, a dog, or a goldfish.
If there is responsibility, it is the owner's. Most certainly not the dog's. Nor the child's, goldfish's etc.
Honestly, if you're going to philosophise, please try to make it a rational debate!

100% Agree DBB!

Rick Rod

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

I presume not. Again it was not 100% true that the dog was responsible.
Did you ever think outside the box? Maybe the child tugged at the dog's ear or angered the dog?

And do you ever think inside the box? Perhaps the dog may kill the next child it attacks.

sillysmiles

Rick Rod wrote: »

And do you ever think inside the box? Perhaps the dog may kill the next child it attacks.

Or perhaps the dog has a toothache?

Perhaps deciding the likelihood of future incidents should be done by

a) people who know the dog ie the owner combined with advice and assistance from
b) the vet and
c) a behaviorist

sillysmiles

The other thing I don't get about the people advocating suing and damages and compensation etc - did you ignore that these two people (the child's mother and the dog's owner) are friends?

They have both accepted equal culpability. They both believe the were equally to blame (my reading of that the op has written), so why would you sue your friend when you think that you are partially responsible?

tk123

I've been lurking on this thread the last few days and just wanted to say well done to the OP. It must have been terrifying for your and your baby but even so you have the compassion to think of your friend and her kids feelings which imo makes you a great parent!

tp25

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Jesus that's really upsetting, did the dog give any warning signs at all, a growl, trying to get away from your daughter, licking his lips or showing the whites of his eyes? I'm so glad that it didn't end up worse than what it was. This is a horrible situation for all involved.

two irresponsible adults and the poor dog and toddler.

ShaneSheep555

Yes I also agree with TK. It must of been quiet hard for the two parents in such a situation.
But just to add, Always keep in mind of dogs around children and Do not blame the dog's actions when they may not be at fault.

Keep close supervision with dog's and Children and make sure the Dog is not threatened or scared.

DBB

Okay all,
There have been a number of references to putting the humans to sleep instead of the dog.
There have been references to carrying out acts of violence to the dog.
There has also been a fair bit of name-calling of the adult humans involved.
They both made a mistake (haven't we all?). They've both admitted this, which is to be commended, to their credit.
If there is one more reference to any of the above, or any more silly, trolly posts, there will be no warnings given, and automatic bans handed out.
Do not reply to this post on thread.
Thanks,
DBB

cathy01

Rick Rod wrote: »

If the child requires consultant care to deal with the trauma who do you think should pay? Could you answer please? I have already stated I believe the insurance company should. What do you think? What's your opinion on who should foot the bill if medical care is required ?

I should.im her mam.its MY Job to look after her.
I didn't leave her alone or out often reach or my sight .
She was beside my foot with a friends friendly family pet.
He turned.
Even if she had been bitten and needed to go to Gp or hospital I would foot the bill.its my fault I failed her.i took a friends word.i should have waited observed and used my own judgment .
Im not the type of person to ever sue .id give out moan nag but never sue ESP a friend. Thank God we still are and my daughter slept grand last night.well if she did cry she didn't wake me.

wexie

cathy01 wrote: »

I should.im her mam.its MY Job to look after her.
I didn't leave her alone or out often reach or my sight .
She was beside my foot with a friends friendly family pet.
He turned.
Even if she had been bitten and needed to go to Gp or hospital I would foot the bill.its my fault I failed her.i took a friends word.i should have waited observed and used my own judgment .
Im not the type of person to ever sue .id give out moan nag but never sue ESP a friend. Thank God we still are and my daughter slept grand last night.well if she did cry she didn't wake me.

Cathy,

I don't really want to get into any of the posts here as no good will come from it. Some of them certainly haven't been very nice towards you.

But I have to say that I am very impressed with your attitude in all this, it's been very admirable.

I hope your little girl will sleep well again tonight and will continue to do so. Kids are remarkably resilient, never ceases to amaze me.

cathy01

Sofiztikated wrote: »

The way I read it was:

Child was petting dog.
Adult looked away.
Adult heard noise.
Looked back.

Who knows what the child did in that absence of supervision.

No mam looked up.child was on mams foot
Mam still had child in view .child was sitting on the floor.

cathy01

ShaneSheep555 wrote: »

I presume not. Again it was not 100% true that the dog was responsible.
Did you ever think outside the box? Maybe the child tugged at the dog's ear or angered the dog?

She didn't.she was just sittin on the floor .
Babling.she has touched the dog under supervision .

mustlove everyone

Rick Rod wrote: »

And do you ever think inside the box? Perhaps the dog may kill the next child it attacks.

You're kind of hysterical for someone who wasn't there and doesn't know for certain, one way or the other, what happened.

Ms. Pingui

It's great to create awareness about dog body language, especially around children, but does anyone else think it was completely irresponsible to use a real baby and dog in the pictures?!
It's getting loads of "likes" and shares on Facebook, and from people I thought would have more cop on. Unbelievable really!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=625556257486866&set=a.329436093765552.72228.329379537104541&type=1&theater