Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Sample sizes and incident percentages for victim’s relationship with dog, geographical location, and owner presence

From: Dog bite injuries to humans and the use of breed-specific legislation: a comparison of bites from legislated and non-legislated dog breeds

Victims relationship with the dog Non-Legislated Legislated Geographical location and owner presence Non-legislated Legislated
n (%)a n (%)a n (%)a n (%)a
Unfamiliar dog 36(37.1) 23(62.2) Dog bit on public property, owner was absent 13(17.3) 6(23.1)
Familiar Dog 38(39.2) 9(24.3) Dog bit on own property, owner was absent 12(16) 7(26.9)
Own dog (in possession more than 3 months) 18(18.6) 4(10.8) Dog bit on public property, owner was present 10(13.3) 8(30.8)
Own dog (in possession less than 3 months) 5(5.2) 1(2.7) Dog bit on own property, owner was present 19(25.3) 1(3.8)
Dog bit owner 16(21.3) 4(15.4)
Dog bit on dog business premises, professional present 5(6.7) 0
  1. aOnly valid responses are used for analyses, therefore totals may not add to total sample size (N = 140)