James McNally (AKA the dog bite solicitor and the creator of this website) has co-authored a new academic study (published online in Injury Prevention, part of the British Medical Journal group) exploring dog-related injuries in England and Wales — and what might prevent them.
The interdisciplinary research uses anonymised civil claim enquiry data to examine the context and consequences of dog-related incidents between 2017 and 2024. It is academically significant because it looks beyond hospital admissions and emergency-department coding, and instead considers the real-life experience of the people who contact us, including the injuries sustained by them, and the longer-term effects on their health, work and wellbeing.
The academic study
Titled “Using civil claim enquiry data to understand the context and impact of dog-related injuries in England and Wales between 2017 and 2024”, the paper is authored by:
-
Dr John Tulloch (Lecturer, Department of Livestock and One Health, University of Liverpool)
-
Dr Gemma Ahearne (Senior Lecturer, Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Liverpool)
-
James McNally and Jasmine Moxey-Butler (who lead our dog injury legal team)
The research draws together veterinary science and personal injury law to address a practical question that is often under-explored in the data: what actually happens when people are injured by dogs — and what happens afterwards?
The findings are likely to inform future interventions, including whether there is now a case for exploring mandatory lead use in certain public spaces.
Why this research takes a different approach
Most published statistics on dog-related injuries come from healthcare datasets, particularly hospital admissions. Those datasets are important, but the authors highlight several limitations when it comes to understanding risk and prevention:
- Hospital records often fail to distinguish between dog bites and dog strikes (injuries caused without biting, such as being knocked over). That distinction matters because the mechanisms — and prevention strategies — can be different.
- Not everyone who needs medical treatment is admitted to hospital, so admissions data capture only part of the harm.
- Healthcare datasets typically contain little detail about the longer-term consequences, such as time away from work, loss of earnings, and psychological impacts.
Civil claim enquiry data can help fill those gaps. When an injured person contacts a specialist personal injury team, early information is typically gathered about the circumstances and impact of the incident, before any decision is made about a legal claim. That can include age and sex, location and setting, whether the dog was restrained, whether the dog was with its owner, whether the injured person knew the dog, the nature of injuries, psychological effects, treatment, time off work and financial losses.
The authors describe this as a novel methodological approach — and the first study to bring together veterinarians and legal professionals to examine dog bites and dog strikes using a solicitor-held dataset.
The dataset
The researchers analysed anonymised enquiry data from 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2024, provided by Slee Blackwell Solicitors LLP, the firm which operates this website and handles dog injury claims nationwide. During that period:
- 816 dog-related incidents were recorded by Slee Blackwell, comprising 842 individual claims
- 94% occurred in England
- Just over 91% involved dog bites
- Around 7% involved dog strikes or other non-bite incidents
Crucially, the dataset includes contextual information that is rarely available in NHS coding or admissions statistics — including the setting or land use, restraint, whether the dog was with its owner, whether the injured person knew the dog, and reported impacts on health and livelihood.
Dog bites and dog strikes can both be serious
One of the study’s clearest messages is that dog-related harm is not limited to bites.
Bites made up the majority of incidents, and 98% of bite cases involved physical injury. But non-bite incidents also had substantial consequences. In the non-bite group, 78% sustained physical injury, and those injuries were often severe. Around 73% of non-bite injuries were described as fractures, with smaller proportions involving muscle, tendon or ligament damage and soft tissue injury.
Surgical intervention was common in both groups. Nearly a third of those in the non-bite group required surgery, and a quarter of bite victims required surgery.
The findings reinforce a practical point for prevention: control is not only about preventing bites. Dogs can cause foreseeable harm through size, strength, speed and behaviour — including collisions and knockdowns in public and domestic settings.
Psychological consequences are widespread
Another important contribution is the study’s focus is psychological harm.
Psychological consequences were reported by:
- 90% of those bitten
- 76% of those injured in non-bite incidents
In 15% of all injured people, the data records a formal diagnosis of mental illness arising from the incident. The paper identifies specific phobia (6.5%) and PTSD (4%) within that figure, alongside reported outcomes such as anxiety, disturbed sleep and avoidance.
In civil claims practice, psychiatric injury often has real-world effects: it can affect work capacity, confidence in public spaces, daily routines, family life and rehabilitation. It can also increase the complexity of cases, requiring specialist medical evidence and careful consideration of prognosis.
Where incidents occur — and why it matters
The study breaks down the locations in which bite and non-bite incidents occurred.
For dog bites, the three most common locations were:
- In front of a private residential property (just over 34%)
- On a highway or pavement (18%)
- Inside a private residential property (11%)
For non-bite incidents, nearly half occurred in public spaces (49%). Among those public spaces, the most common were:
- Outdoor recreational areas such as parks and nature reserves (34%)
- Highways or pavements (23%)
- “Forestry, open land and water” (11.5%)
Two themes follow on from this. First, risk often sits at the boundary between private and public life — particularly at the front of homes, where dogs may rush out through doors or gates. Second, many incidents happen in places the public routinely uses for walking, travel and recreation, where people have limited ability to avoid dogs at close range.
Restraint and owner control
A consistent feature in the data is the lack of restraint at the time of injury. In both bite and non-bite incidents, most dogs were reported to be unrestrained:
- 79% of biting dogs were not restrained
- 86% of dogs involved in non-bite incidents were not restrained
Most dogs were also reported to be with their owner at the time:
- 69% in bite incidents
- 77.5% in non-bite incidents
That combination — off-lead, with owner present — confirms that most injuries arise from dogs in the presence of handlers, raising questions about owner control and expectations in shared spaces.
Delivery workers: a clear occupational risk
The study identifies delivery workers as a high-risk group for bites. Delivery workers accounted for 28% of those bitten. The most common scenario involved a delivery to a private residential property where an unrestrained dog came out of the front door (12%).
With home deliveries now routine for many households, the findings have implications for public policy, employers and household safety practices.
Time off work and financial losses
The economic disruption linked to dog-related injury is also notable. Among those who were working when injured:
- 59.5% of bite victims took time off work
- 56% of those injured in non-bite incidents took time off work
Loss of earnings was reported by:
- 54% of those bitten
- 41.5% of those injured in non-bite incidents
These impacts can have follow-on effects for financial security, housing stability and mental wellbeing.
What the findings suggest for law and policy
The authors propose that mandatory lead use in certain public settings should now be explored, particularly given the danger posed by unrestrained dogs in non-residential locations.
They note that national legislation on lead control does not generally apply to public highways or urban green spaces where many injuries occur. The Highway Code advises keeping dogs on a short lead on pavements and shared paths, but this is guidance rather than law. Local authorities can use Public Space Protection Orders, but the extent of their use and deterrent effect is uncertain.
The authors suggest updating legislation so that dogs are legally required to be on a fixed-length short lead (less than two metres) when on public highways and in urban green spaces, with exemptions where local authorities provide off-lead areas or exempt certain locations. They also propose a nationally coordinated public communication campaign to support any change, balancing public safety and dog welfare.
Our role in the research
From a research perspective, Slee Blackwell Solicitors LLP was well placed to contribute because of our specialist dog injury practice and the high volume of real-world enquiries we receive, containing valuable contextual information not captured in hospital datasets.
Our personal injury department operates a dedicated national service for dog bite and dog-related injury claims, with many claimants accessing support through this specialist website.
The team’s experience spans both serious bite cases and the wider spectrum of incidents encountered in civil practice — including injuries on pavements, in parks and at the threshold of private homes. That breadth, combined with consistent early-stage capture of context and impact, supported research aimed at identifying patterns in restraint, owner control and longer-term harm.
Responsible ownership and a clearer understanding of risk
A consistent theme across the findings is that many incidents occur during ordinary, everyday activities — and often with dogs reportedly with their owners.
Responsible dog ownership is not simply about intent. It is also about recognising risk, anticipating foreseeable harm, and taking practical steps to prevent it — particularly in locations where members of the public have little choice but to pass close to dogs.
The study’s conclusions
Dog-related injuries are not rare, and they are not limited to bites. This study offers a more detailed, context-rich picture of how incidents happen and what they do to people afterwards.
The findings are difficult to ignore: a substantial proportion of incidents involve unrestrained dogs; delivery workers represent a significant share of bite victims; fractures dominate the non-bite category; psychological consequences are widespread, with a meaningful minority receiving formal diagnoses such as phobia or PTSD; and many people experience time off work and financial losses.
By using solicitor enquiry data to capture context and longer-term impact, the research provides a stronger foundation for targeted prevention strategies and informed policy debate about changes to the law.
