<p>A man goes to a grocery store, ties his Shepherd outside the market on a pole making it wait until he returns. Minutes later, a woman and her toddler son begin to enter the market, and the boy is excited to see the dog. He wants to pet it so his mother consents. Unfortunately it ends up biting his hand, and the boy is hurt. When the owner returns the mom is furious and wants to sue. Who do you think is at fault and why?</p>
<p>The man for leaving his vicious, rabid dog out to attack young prey.</p>
<p>The boy for touching something that doesn’t belong to him.</p>
<p>The mom for letting the kid pet the dog – the boy isn’t old enough to make wise judgments. (Should a child be at fault for touching an electrical outlet after he asks his mother for permission & she consents?)</p>
<p>The mom for letting the kid touch it.</p>
<p>hello_motto are you serious with that answer. the toddler is rendered liable.</p>
<p>it’s nobody’s fault but everyone’s responsibility…just like all bad things in life.</p>
<p>The market.</p>
<p>For existing and letting this horrible event occur.</p>
<p>Username: baller4lyfe</p>
<p>The dog, obviously.</p>
<p>Though truthfully, it would depend on if the dog had a history of biting. If it did, then it’s the man’s fault. If it didn’t, the boy must have done something to provoke it, in which case it’s the boy’s fault.</p>
<p>While the man shouldn’t have left the dog alone, the mother should not have let her child pet it. She doesn’t know if it’s friendly, and it’s ultimately HER responsibility to protect her child, not the man’s, not the store’s, and the police’s. The child asked permission and she gave it. She should know that all dogs are capable of biting, regardless of how friendly they look or act. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, in reality, the man would be sued and the dog euthanized for the mother’s stupidity.</p>
<p>^I don’t think so. The courts are not that stupid. The dog was tied to a post, so it wasn’t like it was running around biting little kids. The history of the dog would be the deciding factor here, though this case is still biased against the mother, who gave her son consent to pet the dog, which diminishes her right to say the man did anything wrong.</p>
<p>I’ll have to agree with WhiteWind. This scenario is more likely to happen. The community would not approve of sanctions against the mother and local media would probably make her look like a poor victim with an injured child. Although that won’t be fair.</p>
<p>[DOG</a> BITE LAW - Legal Rights of Dog Bite Victims in the USA](<a href=“http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/legal_ri.htm]DOG”>Legal Rights of Dog Bite Victims in the USA)</p>
<p>Haha, I go the market’s fault response before, but never understood how it became the manager’s fault for having a store, lol.</p>
<p>Legally? It’s the dog owners fault. The owner takes responsibility for the nature of the dog, so he would be liable.</p>
<p>Legally: dog owner
Morally: NoTA</p>
<p>Bernie Madoff is at fault.</p>
<p>I like that response smallz. what is NOTA Jakor?</p>
<p>It is the dog owner’s fault. But the mother was stupid.</p>
<p>well if this was the dogs first offense the dog wouldnt be put down. every dog gets one free bite. did this actually happen to you, OP?</p>