Dog Bite Lawyer

Under California Civil Code section 3342, the owner of a dog is liable for the damages suffered by a person bitten by that dog in a public place, or while lawfully in a private place — including on the owner's own property — regardless of the dog's former viciousness or the owner's knowledge of it.

Read that last part again, because it's the part that matters.

California has no "one bite rule." This is the single most common and most costly misunderstanding about dog bite law. Many states give an owner a free pass on the first bite, on the theory that they had no reason to know the dog was dangerous. California does not. It does not matter that the dog had never bitten anyone. It does not matter that it had never growled at anyone. It does not matter that the owner was careful, kept the dog fenced, and is genuinely horrified about what happened.

The owner is liable because they own the dog.

You don't have to prove the owner was careless. You don't have to prove they knew. You don't have to find prior complaints or prior incidents, though those matter for other reasons.

What still has to be established:

Section 3342 is broad, but it is not unlimited. These are defenses the owner has to raise and prove, not automatic bars.

A great many dog injuries do not involve teeth. Someone is knocked down by a large dog that jumps or lunges. Someone falls backing away. A cyclist is chased and goes down. A child runs into the street to get away from a dog and is hit.

These injuries can be severe — hip fractures in older adults are common and life-changing — and people are routinely told they have no case because there was no bite.

That is wrong. What is true is that Civil Code section 3342 does not apply, so the case runs on ordinary negligence instead. That means showing the owner failed to exercise reasonable care in controlling the animal.

That's often straightforward, because of leash requirements. Both the City and County of Los Angeles require dogs to be restrained in public. A dog running loose in violation of a leash ordinance is powerful evidence of negligence, and in many of these cases it's close to the whole argument.

Negligence claims also reach situations strict liability does not: a gate left open, a dog known to escape, an owner who let a dog off leash around children, or a dog with a documented history that was not controlled.

The practical difference is that these cases require proving the owner did something unreasonable, where a bite case does not. They are still very much cases.

This is the part that changes families' minds, and almost nobody explains it before they have already decided not to pursue anything.

Most dogs that bite are not strays. They belong to a neighbor, a friend, a family member, someone at a barbecue.

Families come to a decision point that no one prepares them for, usually while a child is still in bandages: pursuing this feels like an attack on a person they care about who is already devastated.

Here is what is worth understanding before making that decision.

The claim is against an insurance policy. Practically speaking, you're asking an insurance company to pay for an injury it collected premiums to cover. Your neighbor's role is to notify their insurer, which their policy requires them to do anyway.

The owner is generally not personally out of pocket where coverage exists and the claim falls within policy limits.

A claim is not a criminal matter and does not by itself determine what happens to the dog. Animal control decisions follow their own process, driven by the bite report and local law, and they happen whether or not anyone makes an insurance claim.

Being honest about the other side of it: it can be uncomfortable, and it sometimes strains a relationship. Insurers occasionally take positions that create friction between people who were on good terms. That is real and we do not pretend otherwise.

What we would say is that a family with a permanently scarred child is weighing that discomfort against a lifetime of medical decisions and costs that someone will have to pay for. Those are not equivalent things, and the choice deserves more thought than it usually gets in the first difficult week.

Damages in dog bite cases have a shape that other injury claims do not.

Scarring is permanent, and the treatment isn't over when the wound closes. Scar revision is frequently staged across years. For a child, plastic surgeons often wait for facial growth before performing definitive procedures, which means the full course of care may not complete until adulthood. A settlement that closes the claim while the child is seven has to account for surgeries that will happen at fifteen and at twenty.

Facial and head injuries are disproportionately common, especially in young children, because of the height at which a bite occurs.

Psychological consequences are real and documented. Lasting fear of dogs that restricts where a child can go, sleep disturbance, and anxiety are common outcomes and are compensable, not a soft add-on to the claim.

Infection and nerve damage can extend the medical picture well beyond the initial treatment.

How damages are categorized and proven, including future care and how future costs are established rather than estimated, is covered in more depth on our traumatic brain injury page.

That the child provoked the dog. This is the most common defense in cases involving young children, and it is frequently asserted with no evidence beyond the assumption that the dog must have had a reason.

That you were trespassing, or had gone beyond where you were invited.

That the injury is less than it appears, and that the scar will fade.

That you were partly at fault. California follows pure comparative fault, meaning a share of responsibility reduces recovery rather than barring it — covered on our bus accident page.

And the one that costs families the most: a fast offer. Adjusters often move quickly on dog bite claims involving children, with a check that seems generous relative to bills incurred so far. It arrives before anyone knows how the scar will mature or what revision surgery will cost, and accepting it closes the claim permanently. A settlement involving a minor also generally requires court approval, which exists precisely because these offers are made to families under pressure.

California generally allows two years from the date of injury to file a personal injury lawsuit.

Claims involving children are treated differently. The limitations period is generally tolled during a child's minority, which means a child's own claim usually does not expire while they're still a minor. Claims belonging to the parents, such as medical expenses they paid, may run on the ordinary schedule. This is a genuine distinction and not one to work out from a website.

If a government agency was involved — a police dog, or a dog owned or kept by a public entity — a written claim generally must be presented within six months. See our government liability page.

Knarik Boyadzhyan served as a Deputy Public Defender, representing clients facing criminal charges at every stage. In dog bite cases liability is often not seriously contested, which means the entire case is a valuation fight — and valuation fights are resolved by what the other side believes will happen if the case is tried.

You will work directly with the attorney handling your case rather than a case manager.

We find the coverage first. Homeowner's, renter's, umbrella policies, and any landlord exposure. What is available shapes every decision that follows, and it is better known early.

We obtain the animal control record. The bite report, the dog's history, prior complaints, prior quarantine orders, and any dangerous animal determination. This material is generated in the first days and is not always volunteered.

We document the injury as it develops. Photographs over months, not one set at the emergency room. How a scar matures is the evidence, and it cannot be reconstructed after the fact.

We do not settle a child's claim before the medical picture is clear. Where future surgery is likely, resolving early means the family absorbs costs that should have been covered.

We handle the contact with the owner and their insurer, which removes the most uncomfortable part of the process from a relationship you may want to preserve.