KLAWGURU.COM

Korean Law Demystified!

Dog Bite Leaves Facial Scars on Woman in Her Twenties — Insurer Ordered to Pay Full ₩100 Million Policy Limit

By ,

A Korean court has ordered an insurer to pay the full policy limit of ₩100 million to a woman whose face was bitten by a large dog at a relative’s home, finding the dog owner liable despite the dog being on a leash — and recognizing that visible facial scarring constitutes a compensable loss of earning capacity. Here are the key points.

Issue

Where a large dog on a leash bites a visiting relative who approached it, is the dog owner liable for the resulting injuries — and does permanent visible facial scarring constitute a loss of earning capacity warranting compensation beyond medical costs and non-economic damages?

Facts

  • In July 2020, A, a woman in her twenties, visited her aunt’s home in Hoengseong, Gangwon Province, where approximately 25 relatives had gathered. While photographing a large dog weighing approximately 30 kg that was tied up in the yard, A was bitten in the face.
  • A underwent emergency suturing, followed by facial scar revision surgery and fat grafting, but permanent scarring remained on her face.
  • A’s aunt held an insurance policy that included a family daily life liability rider covering third-party injury claims.
  • The insurer refused to pay, arguing the dog was on a leash and A had voluntarily approached it, negating the owner’s liability.

Court Decision

  • The Uijeongbu District Court, Goyang Branch (Judge Lee Ha-yun) ordered insurer B to pay A the full policy limit of ₩100 million.

On liability, the court rejected the insurer’s argument. Large dogs carry an inherent risk of sudden aggression, and an owner’s obligation to protect visitors does not end simply because the dog is leashed. Given that 25 relatives were present at a family gathering, the need for precautionary measures was particularly acute. The dog had a history of barking and displaying aggressive behavior toward strangers, and the leash was not shortened sufficiently to prevent it from reaching visitors. The court found the owner had not fulfilled her duty of care.

On contributory negligence, the court found A 50% contributorily negligent for voluntarily approaching and photographing the dog, reducing the overall damages accordingly.

On loss of earning capacity, the court made a notable finding: the scarring — which was expected to remain visible at normal conversational distance even after surgery — constituted a recognized loss of earning capacity. At the time of the accident, A was an unmarried woman in her twenties, and the court found the scarring was of a degree that would affect her future employment prospects. This finding, combined with the medical and surgical costs, produced a damages figure that — after applying the 50% contributory negligence reduction — reached the policy ceiling.

On non-economic damages, the court set solatium at ₩20 million, taking into account A’s diagnosed anxiety and depressive disorders as psychological consequences of the injury.

Key Takeaways

  • A leash does not automatically discharge a dog owner’s duty of care. Where the leash length permits the dog to reach visitors, where the dog has known aggressive tendencies, and where the gathering circumstances called for heightened precaution, the owner remains liable even if the visitor approached the dog.
  • Visible permanent facial scarring in a young woman can constitute a compensable loss of earning capacity under Korean tort law — distinct from and in addition to medical expenses and solatium — where the scarring is of a degree likely to affect employment prospects.
  • Contributory negligence for voluntarily approaching an unfamiliar dog can reduce but does not eliminate owner liability, particularly where the owner failed to take basic precautionary measures for a foreseeable gathering of multiple visitors.
  • Family daily life liability insurance riders can be activated for dog bite injuries caused by insured family members’ pets — the insurer cannot simply deny coverage on the basis that the animal was restrained.

Why This Matters

This ruling offers useful guidance on two points that frequently arise in dog bite litigation. First, it clarifies that leash use is a necessary but not sufficient safety measure — owners must also ensure the leash is short enough to actually prevent contact with visitors, particularly in circumstances where a gathering of people creates a foreseeable risk. Second, and perhaps more significantly for damages practitioners, the court’s recognition of facial scarring as a loss of earning capacity in a young woman expands the compensable harm beyond the medical costs and emotional distress that courts more routinely award. For insurers handling daily life liability claims involving dog bites, the decision signals that policy limits can be reached where permanent disfigurement combines with significant medical intervention costs.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=224390

Leave a comment