Dog bites to children and facial injuries

Children are bitten more than adults, and they are bitten on the face. The reason is height: a small child's face is at the level of a standing dog's head. That single fact shapes everything about these claims. This is general information, not legal advice.

The liability rule does not change

The statute is the same one that applies to an adult: the owner is liable for damages suffered by any person bitten in a public place or lawfully in a private place, regardless of the dog's former viciousness or the owner's knowledge of it. A child bitten while lawfully present has the same claim.

What changes is the damages picture and the defences.

Sources: Civ. Code, § 3342 (dog bite liability); CACI No. 463 (dog bite statute — essential factual elements), Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2026 edition).

California strict liability in full.

Provocation, and why it fails against a small child

The standard defence is that the child did something to the dog — pulled an ear, hugged it, approached while it was eating, startled it. Sometimes that is exactly what happened. It is still a weak defence.

A child is not held to an adult standard of care. The measure is the care reasonably expected of a child of the same age, experience, and intelligence, and very young children are generally regarded as incapable of negligence at all. Approaching an animal, reaching for it, and not reading its warning signals is ordinary behaviour for a child — which an adult is required to anticipate rather than be surprised by.

There is a second point that often matters more. The question in these cases is frequently not what the child did but why the child and the dog were left together unsupervised at all.

Sources: CACI No. 412 (duty of care owed children — an adult must anticipate the ordinary behaviour of children and must be more careful when dealing with children than with other adults), Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2026 edition).

Comparative fault.

Facial injuries run on a long clock

This is the part that most affects how a claim should be handled. Facial scarring in a child is not a fixed injury at the point of healing:

• Scar revision is frequently staged over several procedures.
• Final revision often cannot be done until facial growth is complete.
• Scars change with growth, and a scar that looked minor at five can distort as a face develops.
• The psychological effect frequently arrives later, when a child becomes aware of how they are seen.

So the central judgment is timing. Settling before the long-term surgical plan is known risks resolving the claim for a picture that no longer matches the child. The medical opinion that matters is a treating surgeon's view of what will be needed over the years ahead, and it should be obtained before any resolution.

Scarring and disfigurement · psychological injuries.

A minor's settlement needs court approval

Any settlement of a child's claim requires court approval, and funds are typically placed in a blocked account or a structured arrangement releasing at 18. Practically:

• It adds time, and it should be planned for rather than discovered late.
• A court reviews whether the settlement is in the child's interest, which is a real check.
• Future medical needs have to be presented properly, because the court is being asked to approve a resolution that will bind the child.
• Funds are protected from being spent before the child reaches adulthood.

What to preserve

• Photographs of the injury immediately and at intervals through healing — the record of change over time is the evidence.
• Photographs of the child before the bite, for comparison.
• The treating surgeon's plan for future procedures.
• Any change in the child's behaviour, sleep, or willingness to be around animals.
• The dog owner's details, and the animal control report.

Reporting and quarantine.

Common questions

Why are children bitten on the face so often?

Height and proximity. A small child’s face is at the level of a standing dog’s head, and children approach dogs face-on in a way adults do not. The consequence is that a child’s bite injuries are concentrated where scarring matters most.

They say my child provoked the dog.

Expect it, and expect it to be weak. A child is held only to the care reasonably expected of a child of the same age, experience, and intelligence, and very young children are generally regarded as incapable of negligence at all. Ordinary child behaviour around an animal is not provocation.

Should we settle now or wait?

That is the central judgment in a child’s facial injury case. Scar revision is often staged over years and cannot be completed until growth is finished, so settling before the long-term picture is known risks settling for the wrong thing. It is a question for the treating surgeon as much as the lawyer.

Does a court have to approve a child’s settlement?

Yes. A minor’s compromise requires court approval, and the funds are normally placed in a blocked account or structured arrangement until the child turns 18. It is a protection rather than an obstacle, and it adds time that should be planned for.