Skip to main content

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)