Maybe splitting some hairs here.

True, a one year old should be supervised whenever outside. That's just the way it is. I guess that equates to potential culpability on the part of whomever was supposed to be taking care of the little boy.

However, the dogs aren't feral; they're owned by a neighbor. If the dogs attacked the boy anywhere, and particularly if it was off the owner's property, then he's fully culpable for failure to control animals that are his personal property. The fact that the boy was one year old and should have been under immediate supervision won't be that relevant at trial because the "what if" case is that the dogs would also have attacked a six or eight year old who would not be expected to be under the same immediate supervision as a one year old. Whatever he owns is going to be pretty much up for grabs should the boy's parents sue him.