On March 25, 2010, plaintiff Anthony Norwood, 11, sustained to his face when he was bitten by dog. Anthony claimed that he was riding his scooter back home from his friend Jeffery’s house, both located in a residential neighborhood in Kern County, when he was bitten by a German Shepherd when he was about five houses away from his house. Anthony, acting by and through his guardian ad litem, Margaret Smith, sued the alleged owners of the dog, Cruz Felix and Sarah Felix. At trial, Anthony testified that he first saw the dog as it was running at him from the opposite side of the street, but did not see where the dog went after the attack. An Animal Control officer testified that Anthony told her the next day that he saw the German Shepherd run out of the Felixes’ open side yard gate and attack him. Anthony also claimed that knew the Felixes were the owner of the German Shepherd that bit him because he had seen their dog three times before and that the Felixes’ son had tried to “sic” the dog on him the day before the attack. In addition, Anthony testified at trial that after he was bitten, he returned to Jeffrey’s house and hid by the side yard gate because he was scared of the dog. One witness testified during deposition that she saw the Felixes’ dog outside following the attack. However, at trial, she claimed she could not remember the day of the attack. Defense counsel contended that Anthony was trying to protect himself and Jeffrey by claiming that it was the Felixes’ dog. Counsel noted that Anthony had multiple different stories about where he was when he was bitten, where the dog came from, why he went to Jeffrey’s house after being bitten, and what the dog that bit him looked like. For example, defense counsel noted that Anthony claimed in his deposition that during the incident, he saw the Felixes’ German Shepherd run out of their open garage door, while he told the Animal Control officer that the dog ran out of the Felixes’ open side yard gate. Counsel also noted that Anthony claimed in his deposition that he went back to Jeffrey’s house because he was scared of getting in trouble for being too far down the street, while he testified at trial that he went back to Jeffrey’s house and hid because he was scared of the dog. In addition, counsel noted that at the time of deposition, Anthony could not say any identifying characteristics of the subject dog, other than to say it was a normal-sized German Shepherd police dog, but at trial, Anthony claimed the subject dog was tan with black going down the back. In addition, defense counsel contended that, at trial, the Felixes described their dog as being tan with black markings, “like a cow,” and that Jeffrey described his own dog as being tan with black down the back. Thus, defense counsel contended that Jeffrey had a German Shepherd matching the description Anthony gave at trial of the dog that bit him, and that Jeffrey’s dog was unrestrained in the backyard of his house. Counsel also contended that Jeffrey’s dog was known to have bitten two other children, including the Felixes’ son, putting the children in the hospital. Defense counsel argued that the Felixes’ seven to eight month old, 30 to 40 pound German Shepherd puppy was restrained in the Felixes’ backyard at the time of the alleged incident. Counsel also argued that there was no way Anthony could have seen the side yard of the Felixes’ house, as it was tucked between two other houses, and that there were three large pine trees that blocked visibility to the Felixes’ garage. Counsel further argued that all of the blood from the incident was at Jeffrey’s house and on Jeffrey’s side yard gate, and not down the street. In addition, counsel noted that Anthony lived 13 houses down and on the opposite side of the street from the Felixes, while Jeffrey’s house, where essentially all the blood was located, was 10 houses away from Anthony’s house on the same side of the street. Defense counsel added that the only adult witness was a neighbor who lived next door to Jeffrey and who was allegedly walking his friend to their car when he saw Anthony at Jeffrey’s house, coming from the side gate area. This neighbor claimed he never saw a dog loose on the street that day and, despite living essentially across the street from the Felixes, had never seen the Felixes’ dog loose on the street. In addition, defense counsel contended that Animal Control followed procedure and quarantined the Felixes’ German Sheppard for 10 days, saw no aggressive signs from the dog, and returned it to the Felixes’ house, which had four children. Thus, defense counsel argued that the subject German Shepherd was most likely Jeffrey’s dog, or a loose a German Shepherd that was in the neighborhood at the time of the incident, but not the Felixes’ dog. In addition, counsel argued that even if there was a loose German Sheppard on the day of the attack, no witnesses saw a loose dog on the street, so there was no evidence to support that it was the Felixes’ dog., Anthony sustained a bite to his upper and lower lips, on the right side, as well as a puncture wound below his lower eyelid and cheek. He was subsequently taken to a hospital, where he was seen and stitched up by his treating plastic surgeon. Anthony was left with visible scarring on his lower eyelid and bottom lip, as well as a disfigurement of the right half of his upper lip. He claimed that his upper lip would sometimes bleed and that kids would make fun of him for the resultant scarring on his lip area. As a result, the disfigurement of his upper lip was Anthony’s biggest complaint. In addition, Anthony claimed that scar revision surgery is anticipated. The plaintiff’s plastic surgery expert opined that Anthony would have 50 to 60 percent improvement of the scarring area if approximately 13 different procedures were done over 2.5 years, at a cost of approximately $32,000. Defense counsel had the treating plastic surgeon that saw Anthony in the emergency room on the day of the attack testify via video deposition. The physician opined that the scarring to Anthony’s lip could be repaired for $5,000. However, plaintiff’s counsel noted that this physician did not give an opinion on the scarring of the lower lip or eyelid.