Dog attack on a little girl

So, the dog was tied up right in its own backyard... It makes you wonder who actually carries the blame here. Is it the owner, or is it Grandma, since she was the one who brought the child over toward the animal?

If you ask me, I don't see how we can pin this on the owner... I mean, I honestly have no idea what else he could have done to stop an attack like that from happening...

Henry Morris3 said:So, the dog was tied up right in its own backyard... It makes you wonder who actually carries the blame here. Is it the owner, or is it Grandma, since she was the one who brought the child over toward the animal?

If you ask me, I don't see how we can pin this on the owner... I mean, I honestly have no idea what else he could have done to stop an attack like that from happening...

The Grandma entered someone ELSE'S yard where a dog was tied up while accompanied by her grandchild. Why, then, should the owner or the dog be held liable?
If someone were to barge into your apartment without any warning, wouldn't you react accordingly?
I am not attempting to justify the attack, but the dog was on its own territory, and shouldn't the Grandma be the one answering for her lack of supervision over the child?

Look, I’ve dealt with my fair share of legal headaches, but this one? Total nightmare. I was out walking my dog—he was just a pup back then—when this girl on a bike comes flying down the street with her boyfriend right in the middle of the road. They were hauling ass, probably doing 19 miles/h or something crazy. My dog got spooked by the sound of the tires screeching and bolted toward the street, but he didn't even make it out there! The leash was only about three feet long, so there was no way he could have actually reached the road. But she panicked, wiped out, and smashed her skull. We're talking jaw hanging by a thread, barely survived. And guess what? I got slapped with a lawsuit. I didn't do anything wrong! The dog wasn't even in the street. Nowadays, everyone just wants to sue everyone else because they're too lazy to earn a buck. It’s the same deal with this Grandma owning the dog; they just see a chance for a payday.

Rebecca Chavez85 said:The Grandma entered someone ELSE'S yard where a dog was tied up while accompanied by her grandchild. Why, then, should the owner or the dog be held liable?
If someone were to barge into your apartment without any warning, wouldn't you react accordingly?
I am not attempting to justify the attack, but the dog was on its own territory, and shouldn't the Grandma be the one answering for her lack of supervision over the child?

I completely agree.

I have a nice little "Beware of Dog" sign hanging right at my driveway entrance.
Look, buddy, you enter at your own risk.
The real question is, was there actually a sign posted this time?

copperskipper68 said:I have a nice little "Beware of Dog" sign hanging right at my driveway entrance.
Look, buddy, you enter at your own risk.
The real question is, was there actually a sign posted this time?

But why on earth would one even need a "Beware of Dog" sign on their own private property?
To be perfectly blunt, my dog won't even give you a second glance while you're walking down the sidewalk, but the moment you have the audacity to trespass onto his territory—our home—unannounced, things change.
How can anyone possibly justify strolling onto someone else's land with such reckless abandon, only to act shocked when a dog decides to defend its domain?

Henry Morris3 said:So, the dog was tied up right in its own backyard... It makes you wonder who actually carries the blame here. Is it the owner, or is it Grandma, since she was the one who brought the child over toward the animal?

If you ask me, I don't see how we can pin this on the owner... I mean, I honestly have no idea what else he could have done to stop an attack like that from happening...

Both deserve bars. The owner for keeping a dog like that, and the Grandma for her negligence.☕ Let the Court decide which one of them gets an extra year behind bars.

steelfox2, have you ever actually sat down and contemplated the whole concept of a "watchdog"??

hollowtrucker77 said:steelfox2, have you ever actually sat down and contemplated the whole concept of a "watchdog"??

I have. But do you know anything about dangerous Rottweilers? Or even more dangerous grandmas?☕

A dog in a backyard.
Tied up.
How much of a threat is any dog that’s just tied up in its own yard? Honestly.
Are people seriously suggesting we should all just own dogs without jaws?
If they had just walked into my house, I would have kicked them both straight out the door.
In a situation like this, any dog would react the exact same way, so it really doesn't matter if you're dealing with a Rottweiler, a Shepherd, or some tiny Terrier.
I genuinely don't see the point being made here.
Do idiots think they can just do whatever they want and then act like everything is everyone else's fault when things go sideways?
That dog had every right to be in that yard, even without being tied up, whereas those people had absolutely no business being there in the first place.
If someone falls off a skyscraper because they were walking along the ledge, does that mean we should just ban skyscrapers?

Grandma is solely to blame here.
My heart goes out to the kid.😢

I’m really interested in how the legal gymnastics work in cases like this. By definition, a dangerous dog is one that attacks a person or shows clear signs of aggression... but then you have the concept of a good guard dog—one that lunges at or even just aggressively barks at an intruder on "its" property. How do you reconcile those two definitions? Now, this poor dog is facing vet supervision or even potential euthanasia, while the owner deals with a lawsuit, yet by some twisted logic, neither the owner nor the dog is actually at fault. Just a reminder: a dog is often "more dangerous" when it's tethered and someone approaches it than when it's running free.

Look, at the end of the day, the dog owner is 100% responsible for whatever goes down on their watch. The law is the law.

James Sullivan9 said:Look, at the end of the day, the dog owner is 100% responsible for whatever goes down on their watch. The law is the law.

Where does it actually say that, though? If the dog was kept on a chain and there was already a warning sign posted about a dangerous Rotič... I mean, I really don't see what else the owner could have done to better secure a dangerous Rotič...

The headline really should have read, "Little girl and her Grandma jump a dog, dog fights back."
As far as I'm concerned, all this dog deserves is one massive, high-quality bone.

I agree—it’s not really the dog or the owner's fault...

I mean, if Rottweilers are already known as bloodthirsty dogs, why would anyone let a child get near one—even if it's on a leash?

The blame lies with Grandma, or honestly, the parents for leaving a kid with someone who clearly isn't thinking straight.

Who actually bears the responsibility when someone decides to jump from a skyscraper?
The architects and engineers should be hauled before the Court immediately; they failed to implement sufficient safeguards against potential suicides.

steelfox2 said:I have. But do you know anything about dangerous Rottweilers? Or even more dangerous grandmas?☕

A dangerous Rotič? Honestly, it's nothing more than just another dog tied up in someone's backyard.

There’s no such thing as a dangerous Rocky, just a dangerous owner.
In this case, the dog isn't even remotely to blame.
If there were, say, lions on chains in the backyard, would Grandma have reacted any differently?

So, look—if this had been a mail carrier instead of a grandma with a kid, I’m pretty sure the owner would be on the hook if there wasn't a "Beware of Dog" sign posted. But since the story says the woman walked right up to the dog and saw him, there was no element of surprise. We all know what feels fair, but is it actually legal? That's the real question. As for the dog itself? He was just acting on instinct based on his situation. A dog isn't responsible for its actions; the owner is. And honestly, should it matter if it's a Rocky or a Pinch? That feels like pure discrimination. Every owner needs to socialize their pet, train them, and understand their temperament to protect both the animal and the public. Personally, I wouldn't mind if someone kept a rhino, as long as that thing wasn't a threat to my safety.

People get scared of dogs all the time and think they have a right to demand dogs don't exist just because they're afraid. Usually, that fear comes from how they were raised or a bad experience they had as a kid that never got properly worked through—like getting nipped by a pup when they were little. If you asked someone if they'd be afraid to cross the street because a car hit them when they were a toddler, would they suggest we ban cars from the road? Huh...

Henry Morris3 said:So, the dog was tied up right in its own backyard... It makes you wonder who actually carries the blame here. Is it the owner, or is it Grandma, since she was the one who brought the child over toward the animal?

If you ask me, I don't see how we can pin this on the owner... I mean, I honestly have no idea what else he could have done to stop an attack like that from happening...

One must distinguish between liability and guilt. Naturally, the owner is liable because a dog cannot be held accountable under human law.
It is much like a scenario involving thieves being injured by a guard dog or a booby trap; the owner remains responsible. An owner of a dangerous animal has a duty to isolate that animal from the public, and a court will decide if their precautions were sufficient.
The grandmother would also need to provide context—perhaps she was elderly or confused, or maybe they entered an unfenced yard where the owner allows trespassing. We need more facts before we can assign blame.