Dog bites to the face

A minority of states follow the older one-bite rule, under which an owner is liable if they knew or should have known the dog was dangerous. Even there, prior aggression, prior complaints, a bite history, warning signs on the property, a muzzle order, or a breed-specific ordinance violation can supply the required knowledge — and negligence claims remain available independently.

The defenses that actually work are provocation and trespass. Both are narrow, and provocation in particular is not satisfied by a child doing normal child things around a dog.

This matters because it means pursuing a claim is usually not about taking money from a neighbor or a family member personally — it's a claim against an insurance policy that exists precisely for this. That reframing helps a lot of people who otherwise won't file.

Complications to know about: some insurers exclude specific breeds or exclude a dog with a prior bite; landlords can sometimes be liable where they knew a dangerous dog was on the property and had the power to remove it; and if the bite happened at a business, on a commercial property, or at a groomer, daycare, or dog park, a commercial policy may apply instead.

Repair frequently involves a plastic surgeon rather than an ER physician, and the initial closure is often only the first step — scar revision is anticipated from the outset. In children there's an additional dimension: a scar on a growing face changes as the face grows, and revision may be staged over years and revisited at skeletal maturity.

There is also a psychological injury that is real, well documented, and separately compensable. Post-traumatic stress after a facial dog attack is common, particularly in children, and the fear of dogs frequently persists for years. Get it evaluated and treated — for its own sake, and because untreated conditions don't appear in the record.