I think the major thing to consider is the concept that "laying blame is of no material importance". So, let's use instead the phrase "accepting responsibility", since I, too, agree blame serves no one. Who is responsible and therefore accountable?
IF the man had climbed over a private fence and encountered an attacking dog, he is liable for any injury he does the dog, and the property for that matter, because he made a conscious choice to commit an illegal action. If the dog encountered the man on the man's property, the dog owner is liable for injury to the man or his property because he committed an illegal action.
I feel that leading people to believe that situations like this just happen as a matter of coincidence and that the factors LEADING UP TO the event causing injury is of no importance, even in that moment at hand, is advocating a sense of irresponsibility. It is a sure thing that the factors leading up to and the conscious choices made by people involved have EVERYTHING to do with who MUST accept responsibility after the fact. It's just the way life is. And if we want to use the word "blame" synonymously, it really only makes a difference in that "blame" is more inflammatory from a neurolinguistic perspective than "holding responsibility for" or "holding accountable for" the outcome.
If the outcome caused great harm, who is responsible and accountable, and to what extent? Bring on the investigation.
