Dog Bites Involving Children

A dog attack can happen in seconds, but for a child, the effects may continue for years. Children are particularly vulnerable because of their smaller size, their proximity to a dog’s head, and their limited ability to recognize when an animal is frightened, territorial, or becoming aggressive. A bite that might injure an adult’s hand or leg can reach a child’s face, neck, or head.

The Steiner Law Firm represents children and families after serious dog attacks throughout Westchester County and Upstate New York. We look beyond the immediate wound. A child’s case may involve permanent scarring, additional surgeries as the child grows, fear of dogs, emotional distress, and changes in how the child feels about his or her appearance.

New York law governing dog attacks also changed significantly in recent years. Families should not assume that a dog must have bitten someone before a child can have a viable personal injury claim. Depending on the circumstances, liability may be based on an owner’s knowledge of a dog’s dangerous behavior, ordinary negligence, or both.

Why Dog Bites Can Be Especially Serious for Children

Children do not experience dog attacks the same way adults do. A young child may be physically unable to push a dog away or protect the face. A larger dog may knock a child down before biting, creating additional injuries from the fall itself.

Some pediatric dog attacks involve relatively small puncture wounds. Others cause extensive tearing, tissue damage, fractures, nerve injuries, or wounds that require surgical repair.

Among the injuries we may examine in a child’s dog bite case are:

• Facial and scalp lacerations, puncture wounds, permanent scars, eye or eyelid injuries, nerve damage, fractures, infections, and injuries requiring plastic or reconstructive surgery
• Psychological consequences such as nightmares, anxiety, fear of animals, embarrassment over visible scars, withdrawal from activities, and distress connected with medical procedures

The location of a scar can be especially important when evaluating damages. A scar across the cheek, lip, nose, forehead, or another highly visible area may remain noticeable long after the underlying wound has healed. Some children undergo scar revision or other procedures months or years after the original attack.

The long-term picture may therefore be difficult to determine immediately after the bite.

New York Dog Bite Law Changes

For years, New York dog injury cases were dominated by a rule requiring an injured person seeking damages to establish that the dog’s owner knew or should have known about the animal’s vicious propensities. That remains an important potential basis for liability, but it is no longer the entire analysis.

The New York Court of Appeals recently decided Flanders v. Goodfellow. The Court overruled the earlier Bard v. Jahnke rule to the extent that Bard prevented ordinary negligence claims for injuries caused by domestic animals.

After Flanders, New York recognizes two important potential paths.

A dog owner may be strictly liable when the owner actually knew or should have known that the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities and the injury resulted from that behavior.

Alternatively, a family may pursue an ordinary negligence theory by showing that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances and that this failure caused the child’s injury. A plaintiff may potentially assert both theories.

This distinction can be critical in a case involving a child attacked by a dog that had never previously bitten anyone.

A Prior Bite Is Not the Only Evidence That Matters

Even when dangerous propensity is at issue, the law does not necessarily require proof of an earlier bite.

Evidence may include previous aggressive behavior that should have alerted the owner to a danger. Growling, lunging, snapping, baring teeth, threatening visitors, charging a fence, aggressive reactions to children, or other behavior may become important depending on the facts.

The Court of Appeals’ decision in Flanders itself illustrates why the inquiry cannot simply be reduced to asking whether the dog had bitten somebody before.

We investigate what the dog had done previously, what the owner had observed, whether neighbors or visitors had complained, and how the dog was normally restrained or managed.

Negligence Can Matter Even Without a Known Vicious Dog

The negligence theory recognized by Flanders allows the circumstances surrounding the attack to receive greater attention.

Consider a dog owner who knows an excitable large dog is running loose while several young children are playing nearby. Or an adult who brings a dog into close contact with a child despite circumstances suggesting that greater control is necessary. Whether the conduct amounts to negligence depends on the particular evidence, but prior viciousness is no longer necessarily the only route to establishing responsibility.

A case may involve questions about supervision, restraint, gates, leashes, warnings, the location of the attack, the dog’s behavior, the child’s age, and what a reasonable owner should have done under those circumstances.

For families, this means it is important to investigate the entire event rather than stopping the inquiry because somebody says, “The dog never bit anyone before.”

New York’s Dangerous Dog Statute

New York Agriculture and Markets Law § 123 establishes procedures concerning dangerous dogs.

An adult acting on behalf of a minor may make a complaint following an attack or threatened attack. When appropriate, a proceeding can determine whether a dog qualifies as dangerous and what measures should be imposed.

The court has several potential options after making a dangerous-dog finding, including secure confinement, leash restrictions, muzzling in public, behavioral evaluation or training, and certain liability-insurance requirements. In particularly serious circumstances involving serious physical injury, death, or specified previous conduct, stronger measures may be available.

Section 123 also states that an owner or lawful custodian of a dangerous dog may be strictly liable for medical costs resulting from injuries caused by the dog, subject to statutory exceptions.

Importantly, § 123 expressly preserves other common-law and statutory claims involving dogs with vicious dispositions or propensities. A dangerous-dog proceeding and a civil personal injury lawsuit therefore address different issues and should not be confused with one another.

What Parents Should Do After a Dog Attacks a Child

The first concern should be the child’s health. New York State health authorities recommend washing and covering a dog-bite wound and obtaining medical attention. A bite should also be reported to the appropriate local health authorities so that potential rabies exposure can be evaluated.

Once the child’s immediate medical needs have been addressed, preserving information about the incident can become extremely important.

Parents should consider the following steps:

1. Obtain appropriate medical care and follow instructions concerning wound treatment, infection, vaccinations, specialists, plastic surgery, or follow-up appointments.
2. Identify the dog’s owner or custodian, obtain available vaccination information, report the attack when appropriate, photograph the child’s injuries as they change over time, preserve damaged clothing, identify witnesses, and avoid disposing of documents relating to treatment or expenses.

Families should not attempt to confront the owner or investigate an aggressive dog themselves. Information about the dog’s history can often be developed later through witnesses, records, legal discovery, and other investigative methods.

When the Dog Belongs to Someone the Family Knows

Many parents hesitate to investigate a claim because the dog belongs to a neighbor, family friend, relative, landlord, or another person they know.

That concern is understandable, particularly when the attack occurred during a birthday party, neighborhood visit, family gathering, or playdate.

But a personal injury claim does not necessarily mean that a parent is personally demanding money directly from someone close to the family. Depending on the circumstances, homeowners, renters, or other insurance may be relevant.

The important question is what protection is available for the injured child. A significant facial injury or other permanent damage can create medical and emotional consequences long after everyone’s immediate feelings about the incident have faded.

Investigating What the Dog Owner Knew

When dangerous propensity is part of the case, early investigation can uncover evidence that is not obvious to the child’s family.

An owner may say that the dog had never bitten anyone. That statement does not necessarily answer whether the owner knew or should have known that the animal presented a particular danger.

Neighbors may have seen the dog repeatedly charge a fence. A delivery worker may have encountered aggressive behavior. Visitors may have been warned not to approach the animal. The owner may have previously separated the dog whenever children arrived. There could have been earlier complaints, attempted bites, threatening behavior, or precautions suggesting that the owner already appreciated the risk.

The dog’s behavior need not fit a single formula. The question is whether the available evidence supports liability under New York law.

Evaluating a Child’s Future Damages

A child’s damages cannot always be measured from the emergency room bill.

Growing children may face future procedures. A scar may become more noticeable or require revision. Nerve damage can cause lasting functional or sensory problems. An injury near the eye or mouth may require specialized care.

There may also be a substantial emotional component.

A child who once loved animals may suddenly panic around dogs. Another may become self-conscious when classmates ask about a facial scar. Younger children may struggle to communicate what they are experiencing and instead show changes in sleep, behavior, or social activity.

A strong presentation of damages should explain these effects without exaggeration. Medical records matter, but so do photographs, specialist opinions, treatment recommendations, and evidence showing how the attack affected the child’s ordinary life.

Norman Steiner’s Perspective on Serious Injury

The Steiner Law Firm is led by trial attorney Norman Steiner, who has practiced law for close to three decades and has tried approximately 50 cases before juries.

Norm also understands severe injury from a perspective that cannot be learned exclusively from medical records.

After a catastrophic collision, he became an amputee. He went through the physical and personal process of adapting to a body that had been permanently changed. That experience affects the way he evaluates and explains injuries today.

For a child with permanent facial scarring or another significant injury, the legal case involves more than describing a wound in clinical terms. An insurance adjuster, judge, or jury may need to understand what it means for that child to see the injury in a mirror every morning, undergo another procedure, answer questions from classmates, or carry the effects of an attack into adolescence and adulthood.

Norm’s own experience helps him distinguish between what medical records say and what a serious injury actually does to someone’s life. He understands that adapting successfully does not mean the loss disappeared.

That ability to translate an injury into a clear human story can be particularly important when an insurer attempts to evaluate a child’s future by looking primarily at medical bills or the appearance of the wound shortly after the attack.

Child Injury Settlements Receive Special Protection

Cases involving children differ from ordinary adult personal injury settlements.

Under CPLR Article 12, New York provides special procedures for settling claims belonging to minors. CPLR § 1207 permits a court to approve the settlement of an infant’s claim, and CPLR § 1208 addresses the documentation and procedures associated with that approval.

The purpose is to protect the child’s interests.

CPLR § 1206 also governs the disposition of settlement proceeds belonging to a minor. Depending on the circumstances and the court’s order, funds may be placed in protected accounts or handled through another court-approved arrangement, including certain structured settlements.

These protections are particularly relevant when an injury may affect a child for years after the case itself has ended.

Frequently Asked Questions About Dog Bites Involving Children

Does a dog have to bite someone previously before its owner can be liable?

No. New York does not impose a literal “one free bite” rule. A prior attack can be powerful evidence, but other aggressive behavior may establish knowledge of dangerous propensities. In addition, following the Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Flanders v. Goodfellow, ordinary negligence can provide a separate basis for liability even when dangerous propensity cannot be established.

What if my child was bitten by a relative’s or neighbor’s dog?

The relationship between the family and the owner does not determine whether a claim exists. Insurance coverage may be available depending on the circumstances. We can examine responsibility and applicable coverage while allowing the family to make informed decisions about how to proceed.

Can we recover compensation for a facial scar?

Potentially. Permanent disfigurement can be an important component of damages, particularly when a child’s face is involved. The evaluation may consider the scar’s location and appearance, medical treatment, future revision procedures, pain, emotional effects, and other consequences.

What if the dog owner says my child provoked the animal?

That allegation should be investigated rather than automatically accepted. Agriculture and Markets Law § 123 recognizes certain circumstances in which a dog’s behavior may be considered justified, including tormenting, abusing, assaulting, or physically threatening the dog. Whether those provisions apply depends on what actually happened. The age and conduct of the child and the complete circumstances of the encounter matter.

Who pays a settlement belonging to a child?

The source of payment depends on the defendant and available insurance. Once a settlement is reached, New York’s infant-settlement procedures generally require court involvement to protect the child’s interests and determine how the child’s proceeds will be held or distributed.

Should we wait to see how the scar heals before contacting a lawyer?

There may be good reasons for doctors to wait before determining whether scar revision or another procedure is appropriate, but that does not mean the legal investigation should wait. Evidence relating to responsibility can become more difficult to recover with time.

Talk With The Steiner Law Firm About Your Child’s Dog Bite

When a dog seriously injures a child, parents are suddenly responsible for medical decisions, emotional reassurance, safety concerns, insurance questions, and legal issues they never expected to face.

The Steiner Law Firm helps families throughout Westchester County and Upstate New York investigate what happened, determine which New York liability rules apply, identify available insurance coverage, document the child’s injuries, and evaluate both present and future consequences.

Norman Steiner brings extensive trial experience and a personal understanding of permanent injury to that process. He knows how much can exist beyond a diagnosis or photograph, and he knows how to explain those consequences clearly to the adjusters, judges, and juries who may ultimately evaluate a claim.

If your child was bitten or attacked by a dog, contact The Steiner Law Firm to discuss what happened and learn what options may be available under New York law.