. 2017 Jul 21;70:23. doi: 10.1186/s13620-017-0101-1

Table 3.

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

Victims relationship with the dog	Non-Legislated	Legislated	Geographical location and owner presence	Non-legislated	Legislated
Victims relationship with the dog	n (%)^a	n (%)^a	Geographical location and owner presence	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

^aOnly valid responses are used for analyses, therefore totals may not add to total sample size (N = 140)