Once Bitten, Twice As Shy: The Psychological and Legal Implications of Dog Bites
Dogs have been the loving and loyal companions of humans for well over 15,000 years. In rare cases, however, man’s best friend can turn vicious. In fact, studies have shown that approximately 4.5 million dog bites occur each year in the US alone. While many of these are minor and require no medical attention, about 1% lead to injuries. In the UK, more than 8,000 people are admitted to hospital each year for dog bites. What’s more, these are often not random incidents. A survey of dog-related hospital admissions in the UK found that 90% of them were caused by a family's pet or the pet of a friend.
Some of these attacks can be extremely serious, even fatal. Many of them leave lasting wounds or cause victims to suffer from limited mobility. But while the physical consequences of dog bites are undoubtedly cause for concern, their long-lasting psychological effects can be equally severe.
In a medico-legal context, if a dog bite affects a person’s mental health, then they can be eligible for compensation to cover their ongoing treatment. In this post, therefore, we look at some of the psychological ramifications of dog bites, as well as at the legal issues for dog bite victims and dog owners.
What are the potential psychological consequences of dog bites?
Dog bites can be psychologically damaging for both adults and children. The victims of dog bites have been known to suffer from a number of mental disorders, including post-traumatic stress, issues of body image, and certain specific phobias.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can result after any traumatic event or experience. It usually manifests itself through nightmares and flashbacks, or through feelings of isolation and guilt. It is common for people with PTSD to revisit their trauma whenever they are reminded of its cause or effect. In the case of a dog attack, therefore, a person’s PTSD symptoms can be triggered by interactions with other dogs, as well as by the sight of any scars that linger after the attack.
Patients may become hypervigilant and “on edge” in situations which remind them of the incident. Given the large ownership of dogs across the UK, this can mean that any public space such as town centres and parks may become potentially threatening. This can lead to avoidance and severe restrictions on the patient’s life .
PTSD from dog bites affects children as much as adults. Indeed, the impact of a dog attack is likely to be even more psychologically overwhelming for a child, given their comparative size in relation to a dog. That said, PTSD can sometimes be more difficult to recognize in children, most notably because its diagnosis often requires skills that young children sometimes lack, such as the ability to describe their inner emotions and feelings. One way that PTSD does present in children, however, is through their regression to earlier developmental milestones. For example, a child might resume bed-wetting or suffer from increased separation anxiety. While such symptoms might appear to have no direct correlation with the dog bite specifically, they often indicate that it has caused long-lasting psychological damage.
Cynophobia and Agoraphobia
In both adults and children, dog bites can also lead to the onset of certain specific phobias. The most common of these are cynophobia (the fear of dogs) and agoraphobia (the fear of wide open spaces), both of which can present either independently or in combination with PTSD.
The development of cynophobia is perfectly understandable. After suffering an attack from a dog, a person can develop a very real and debilitating fear of dogs. Similar to PTSD, this can prevent them from visiting places where dogs congregate, and it may even cause them to refuse to visit friends or family who have pets at home. Even people who once loved animals may become anxious and afraid of them after an attack.
Agoraphobia is a slightly more generalized response to a dog bite. People with agoraphobia become unwilling to leave the house or to visit public spaces. This may be because they are worried about encountering another dog or because they are worried more generally about suffering another type of attack.
In both cases, it is important to note that these phobias are more overwhelming and more pronounced than typical fears. They often cause people to change their activities or reorganize their lives completely. People who suffer from such phobias can also present with an array of physical symptoms, such as dizziness, nausea, heart palpitations, and trembling.
Body Image Issues
The final psychological consequence commonly associated with dog bites is the onset of body image issues. The scars that result from canine attacks can become sources of permanent psychological distress for victims, particularly when those scars appear in prominent places, such as on the face or hands. Scarring in these areas is typically difficult to cover up with makeup or clothing, causing victims to worry about their appearance in public and, resultantly, to become more reclusive and isolated. They may worry that they’re no longer attractive to their romantic partner, and they may suffer from feelings of shame and embarrassment. This can lead to intimacy issues and loss of libido.
Furthermore, if the wounds in question require the patient to undergo reconstructive surgery (as is the case for some twenty-seven thousand dog bite victims in the US every year), then they may also have to endure the painful psychological process of adjusting to their new body.
Finally, just like PTSD, issues of body image in the wake of dog bites are not just limited to adults. Children too have been shown to suffer from lasting body image problems after a dog attack, since the changes that the scars provoke in a child’s body and behaviour can often lead to teasing or bullying at school. Moreover, as children grow older, their concerns about their scars often add to the body image problems they experience during puberty. Dog bite wounds may exacerbate a child’s feelings of loneliness, as well as their desire to fit in during this difficult period.
What will a psychiatric Expert Witness assess in a dog bite claim?
As is clear from the above list of possible symptoms, dog bites can have several long-term effects on a person’s mental health. In certain cases, these effects can require extensive psychological treatment over an extended period of time. If this is the case, then a person may be entitled to compensation for their treatment. When they bring their claim to court, therefore, the judge will usually ask for a psychiatric assessment from an Expert Witness.
As in other medico-legal cases, the task of a Psychiatric Expert Witness in a dog bite case is to assess the psychological ramifications of the attack. The Expert Witness will assess the claimant for any of the symptoms listed above, be they related to PTSD, phobias, or issues related to body image. That said, even if an Expert Witness does decide that a dog bite has had a lasting impact on a claimant’s mental health, this does not necessarily mean that he or she will be awarded damages for the attack. This all depends on the specific interpretation of the attack itself, which is a question for the court. In what follows, therefore, we explore some of the main pieces of legislation governing canine attacks and outline the mechanisms by which dog bite cases are assessed in court.
The law and dog bites
In the UK, there are several different pieces of legislation that deal with dog bites and dangerous animals. The first of these is the Dogs Act, which was first introduced in 1871. When this Act came into force, its primary target was dealing with stray dogs, but it also covered the handling of dogs that were deemed to be dangerous. This second part of the Act still remains in force today. It is outlined in Section 2 and gives the court the authority to seize a dog that they think is dangerous. It also allows the court to order a dog’s owner to exercise additional controls over it. If the owner does not abide by that order, then the court can take further action against them or the dog. The court can even decide to have the dog put down.
Nowadays, if a person wishes to bring a claim against a dog owner after suffering an attack, that claim will most likely be brought under the Animals Act (1971). This states that the keeper of an animal is liable for any damages which that animal causes if either one of the following criteria apply:
The animal is recognized as belonging to a dangerous species
The animal’s owner should have anticipated its violent tendencies
There are currently only four types of dog that fall under the category of “dangerous species.” These are listed in the updated Dogs Act of 1991 and are as follows: the Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino, and the Film Brasileiro. It is illegal for a person to own or keep any of these breeds, so an attack by one of them would leave its owner liable for damages.
In the vast majority of cases, however, dog attacks involve an animal that does not belong to one of these four species, meaning that the court’s decision to award damages typically hangs on whether or not the dog’s owner should have anticipated its violent actions. This is why Section 2 of the Dogs Act (1871) still remains relevant to dog bite claims today. As mentioned above, this part of the Act established a clear mechanism for identifying whether or not an animal is prone to dangerous behaviour. If a dog owner has already been ordered by the court to control their dog, then the court has clear evidence that they should have known in advance that the dog would be violent. If this is the case, then a person suffering an attack will likely be eligible for compensation. If it cannot be proved that the dog’s owner should have anticipated the violent behaviour, however, then the owner is not liable.
This question of liability was raised recently in a case involving a man with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, who was attacked by a police dog that had been “trained to bite.” The lawyer for the plaintiff described the dog as “a loaded weapon which was at risk of going off,” and the judge presiding over the trial declared that the policeman had taken a foreseeable and “unwarranted risk” in bringing the dog along with him to investigate the small disturbance that the man was accused of causing. Since the dog’s training made it predictable that it would bite, it was the responsibility of the dog’s handler (and its owner, the Metropolitan Police) to ensure that it was safely managed. In the event, however, this was not the case. The man was attacked and was subsequently awarded significant damages as a result.
Summary
This post has highlighted some of the complexities of both the psychological consequences and the legal ramifications of dog bites. People who suffer an attack from a dog are at risk of developing PTSD, cynophobia, agoraphobia, and body image issues alongside their physical wounds. As such, they may be eligible for damages in compensation.
That said, even if a person’s mental and physical health does suffer as the result of a canine attack, the question of whether or not to award damages is one that the court must decide. That question hinges on whether or not the owner of the dog should have been aware that their dog was likely to act violently. If this cannot be shown to be the case, then the owner is unlikely to be liable for damages.
This post is provided for general information purposes and is not intended to cover every aspect of the topics with which it deals. It does not constitute medical, legal, or professional advice, nor is it necessarily an endorsement of the views of Professor Elliott, the U.K. Centre for Medico-Legal Studies, its employees, or its affiliates. Though we aim to ensure that all information is accurate at the time of posting, we make no representations, warranties or guarantees, whether express or implied, that the content in the post is complete or up to date.