Child bitten by a dog at Christmas Wonderland in GBTB: Dog owners allegedly refuses liability

SINGAPORE: A 4-year-old boy was allegedly bitten by a dog at the Christmas Wonderland in Gardens by the Bay (GBTB) on Dec 12.

The family was left shocked by the incident, especially when the dog owner refused to take responsibility, claiming they were “not liable” because “the incident occurred in a public place.”

The incident came to light when the mother of the four-year-old boy shared their experience on Facebook on Tuesday (12 Dec).

The family was exploring the Christmas Wonderland at Gardens by the Bay (GBTB) when the boy, walking past a pair of dogs, suddenly knelt down in distress.

Contrary to the mother’s initial belief that her son had merely fallen, it became apparent that he had been bitten by one of the dogs.

Accompanying the post was a picture showing the pet owners with leashes for what seemed to be a corgi and a dachshund.

Supposedly, there were three dogs, and the one that attacked the boy is being held by the woman with long hair.

According to the mother, the attack was unprovoked, as her son was simply walking past the dogs.

“My son was walking towards the snow blizzard, and suddenly, he’s kneeling on the floor crying hysterically. I thought he fell down. After he calmed down, he told me the dog BIT him!!

“THERE WAS NO PROVOCATION; he is innocently walking past,” the mother wrote in a post.

The boy sustained bite marks on his thigh, and his shorts had a noticeable hole as a result of the incident.

Moreover, upon being informed of the attack, the mother’s husband confronted the dog owner, who allegedly acknowledged the incident but claimed no liability, citing the public space as the setting.

The mother further asserted that the owner refused to exchange contact details with her husband, and despite attempts to detain the dog owner until the arrival of the police, she allegedly managed to escape.

On 13 December, the mother additionally posted about the incident on the “COMPLAINT SINGAPORE” Facebook page, hoping against the odds that someone might recognize the dog owner.

Organizer’s response

In response to queries from MS News, a representative from Blue Sky Events, the organizer of Christmas Wonderland, expressed regret over the incident.

However, the spokesperson claimed that the incident had not been brought to the attention of their staff.

Nevertheless, the event organizer issued an advisory, urging pet owners to adhere to prevailing regulations, including keeping their dogs on a leash at all times in public spaces and muzzling certain breeds.

Community backs mother and criticizes dog owner’s actions

Looking at the comment section, many people supported the mother and criticized what they saw as an irresponsible dog owner.

Some also questioned the dog owner’s logic in claiming non-liability solely because the incident happened in a public place.

A commenter suggested that the dog owner should offer an apology and stay to assist the bitten boy, providing comfort and consolation instead of denying responsibility and leaving.

“I hope you can identify her soon, and hope your boy is recovering well,” the user remarked.

Simultaneously, some expressed concern for the boy, urging the parents to promptly take him to the hospital due to fears of infection or, worse, the potential risk of rabies.

Alleged witness to the incident

Additionally, a commenter who claims to have witnessed the incident shared their perspective.

The commenter reported that the incident occurred as the snow blizzard began at the event. According to the him, there was no provocation whatsoever.

However, the dog was already barking when the little boy ran past it, in contrast to the mother’s claim that the boy was walking.

The witness claimed, “When the dog was already barking, the dog diverted its attention to your son and bit him.”

He suggested that while the boy did nothing wrong, the parents were allegedly too focused on the snowing event and not attentive to the barking dog.

The witness also mentioned a prior altercation involving the dog, stating, “The dog owner very obviously cannot take care of the dog well because before the little boy got bitten, the dog already had a fight with a golden retriever.”

The user claimed that instead of addressing the situation, the dog owner panicked, and the owner of the golden retriever had to intervene instead.

Responding to the comment, the father of the little boy expressed gratitude to the witness for providing their account.

Despite being a dog lover, the father conveyed his frustration with the dog owner’s refusal to exchange contact information.

He recounted informing the owner about the severity of the bite, necessitating a hospital visit. However, the dog owner allegedly retorted, “but this is a public place, why am I liable.”

The father explained that his son had to consult a specialist for the wound. The specialist initially suggested surgery to remove the flesh surrounding the wound, which could result in permanent scarring.

Fortunately, after washing and further evaluation, the specialist recommended trying oral antibiotics first and re-evaluating in two days.

The father concluded by stating that he had filed a police report, and the police indicated that the case would be filed under section 10 of Miscellaneous Offences.